Kimberly Spooner1, Long Phan1,2, Mariano Cozzi3, Thomas Hong1, Giovanni Staurenghi3, Eugenia Chu1, Andrew A Chang4,5. 1. Sydney Retina, Level 13, Park House, 187 Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia. 2. Graduate School of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 3. Department of Biomedical and Clinical Science "Luigi Sacco", Eye Clinic, Sacco Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 4. Sydney Retina, Level 13, Park House, 187 Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia. achang@sydneyretina.com.au. 5. The Save Sight Institute, Discipline of Ophthalmology, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. achang@sydneyretina.com.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the reliability and comparability of retinal measurements obtained with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT), optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA), confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (cSLO) colour images, and fundus autofluorescence (FAF) between two multimodal imaging platforms in eyes with macular pathology and normal, healthy volunteers. METHODS: This cross-sectional, multi-centre, instrument validation study recruited 94 consecutive subjects. All participants underwent a dilated examination and were scanned consecutively on the Heidelberg Spectralis (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) and Nidek Mirante (Nidek Co. Ltd., Gamagori, Japan) devices. Agreement between device images were evaluated from measures of the central retinal thickness (CRT), presence of segmentation and fixation imaging artefacts (IA), foveal avascular zone (FAZ) measurements; as well as sensitivity and specificity values from the detection of atrophy on fundus autofluorescence (FAF), drusen, subretinal drusenoid deposits, geographic atrophy, epiretinal membrane, fibrosis and haemorrhage on multicolour imaging, and agreement between devices and groups. RESULTS: Compared with reference clinical examination, sensitivity values for the identification of retinal features using sole device images ranged from 100% for epiretinal membranes to 66.7% for subretinal drusenoid deposits (SSD). Mean absolute difference for CRT between OCT devices was 3.78 μm (95% confidence interval [CI]: - 21.39 to 28.95, P = 0.809). Differences in the superficial and deep capillary plexus FAZ area on OCTA between devices were not statistically significant (P = 0.881 and P = 0.595, respectively). IAs were significantly increased in the presence of macular pathology. CONCLUSION: Comparison of retinal measurements between the OCT devices did not differ significantly. Common ultrastructural biomarkers of multiple macular pathologies were identified with high sensitivities and specificities, with good agreement between graders, indicating that they can be identified with comparable confidence in retinal imaging between the two devices.
PURPOSE: To investigate the reliability and comparability of retinal measurements obtained with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT), optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA), confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (cSLO) colour images, and fundus autofluorescence (FAF) between two multimodal imaging platforms in eyes with macular pathology and normal, healthy volunteers. METHODS: This cross-sectional, multi-centre, instrument validation study recruited 94 consecutive subjects. All participants underwent a dilated examination and were scanned consecutively on the Heidelberg Spectralis (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) and Nidek Mirante (Nidek Co. Ltd., Gamagori, Japan) devices. Agreement between device images were evaluated from measures of the central retinal thickness (CRT), presence of segmentation and fixation imaging artefacts (IA), foveal avascular zone (FAZ) measurements; as well as sensitivity and specificity values from the detection of atrophy on fundus autofluorescence (FAF), drusen, subretinal drusenoid deposits, geographic atrophy, epiretinal membrane, fibrosis and haemorrhage on multicolour imaging, and agreement between devices and groups. RESULTS: Compared with reference clinical examination, sensitivity values for the identification of retinal features using sole device images ranged from 100% for epiretinal membranes to 66.7% for subretinal drusenoid deposits (SSD). Mean absolute difference for CRT between OCT devices was 3.78 μm (95% confidence interval [CI]: - 21.39 to 28.95, P = 0.809). Differences in the superficial and deep capillary plexus FAZ area on OCTA between devices were not statistically significant (P = 0.881 and P = 0.595, respectively). IAs were significantly increased in the presence of macular pathology. CONCLUSION: Comparison of retinal measurements between the OCT devices did not differ significantly. Common ultrastructural biomarkers of multiple macular pathologies were identified with high sensitivities and specificities, with good agreement between graders, indicating that they can be identified with comparable confidence in retinal imaging between the two devices.
Authors: Alessandro Rabiolo; Francesco Gelormini; Alessandro Marchese; Maria Vittoria Cicinelli; Giacinto Triolo; Riccardo Sacconi; Lea Querques; Francesco Bandello; Giuseppe Querques Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: J L Lauermann; A K Woetzel; M Treder; M Alnawaiseh; C R Clemens; N Eter; Florian Alten Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2018-07-07 Impact factor: 3.117