| Literature DB >> 34313724 |
Sohaib R Rufai1,2,3,4, Richard Bowman1,2, Catey Bunce5, Vasiliki Panteli1, Rebecca J McLean3, Seema Teli3, Irene Gottlob3, Mervyn G Thomas3, Noor Ul Owase Jeelani2,4, Frank A Proudlock3.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine whether handheld optical coherence tomography (OCT) is feasible and repeatable in children with craniosynostosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34313724 PMCID: PMC8322722 DOI: 10.1167/tvst.10.8.24
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol ISSN: 2164-2591 Impact factor: 3.283
Figure 1.Handheld OCT examination in young child with craniosynostosis.
Figure 2.Segmentation parameters. (A) Diametric parameters: (a) cup depth (blue), measured from cup base to midpoint of neuroretinal peaks; (b) cup diameter (amber), measured at midpoint of cup depth; (c) disc diameter (orange), measured from nasal to temporal Bruch's membrane; (d) RNFL thickness (red), measured at 6° from the disc midpoint, bounded by the ILM and GCL; (e) retinal thickness (black) measured at 6° from the disc midpoint, bounded by the ILM and Bruch's membrane. (B) Cup and rim area: (f) cup area (blue shade), bounded by neuroretinal peaks; (g) rim area (orange shade), bounded by edges of Bruch's membrane. (C) Natural scale image displaying the BMO-MRW (h). Nasal and temporal measurements were taken for (d), (e), (g), and (h), plus rim height shown as the lateral borders of (g). BMO-MRW, Bruch's membrane opening minimum rim width; GCL, ganglion cell layer; ILM, internal limiting membrane; RNFL, retinal nerve fiber layer thickness.
Figure 3.Feasibility flowchart. *When excluding four children imaged under general anesthesia, 39 out of 46 of the children (84.8%) achieved ≥1 ONH image, and 35 out of the 46 children (76.1%) achieved bilateral ONH images. †Child with Crouzon syndrome and cognitive impairment had limited cooperation due to poor understanding, whereas all other unsuccessful attempts were in children with non-syndromic craniosynostosis. ‡Pinpoint pupils and eye-rolling were caused by opiate administration prior to handheld OCT examination in the operating theater.
Patient Demographics
| Baseline Characteristics | Patients With at Least One Successful ONH Scan | Patients With Unsuccessful ONH Scans |
|---|---|---|
| Diagnosis, | ||
| Syndromic | ||
| Apert | 4 | — |
| Crouzon | 3 | 1 |
| Pfeiffer | 2 | — |
| Muenke | 1 | — |
| Bartter (type 4) | 1 | — |
| MEK2 mutation | 1 | — |
| Syndromic total | 12 | 1 |
| Non-syndromic | ||
| Sagittal | 20 | 5 |
| Multisuture | 11 | 1 |
| Non-syndromic total | 31 | 6 |
| Gender, | ||
| Male | 26 | 7 |
| Female | 17 | 0 |
| Age at handheld OCT (mo), median (IQR; range) | 66.3 (37.8–44.9; 1.9–156.9) | 37.8 (29.3–43.0; 20.1–70.9) |
Repeatability Analysis
| OCT Parameters | Overall Mean | Mean Difference | ICC (95% CI) | 95% Limits of Agreement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Optic nerve parameters | ||||
| Cup depth (µm) | 326.67 | 1.35 | 0.99 (0.98–1.00) | −39.32, 42.02 |
| Cup width (µm) | 505.49 | −23.16 | 0.82 (0.66–0.92) | −218.32, 172.00 |
| Cup area (µm2) | 171480.48 | −1578.27 | 0.97 (0.93–0.99) | −52644.64, 49488.10 |
| Disc width (µm) | 1494.35 | −9.38 | 0.91 (0.81–0.96) | −183.49, 164.73 |
| Rim parameters | ||||
| Nasal rim height (µm) | 467.87 | 1.73 | 0.99 (0.97–0.99) | −34.37, 37.83 |
| Temporal rim height (µm) | 314.45 | 2.39 | 0.99 (0.97–0.99) | −28.99, 33.77 |
| Rim width (µm) | 1354.30 | −4.52 | 0.96 (0.91–0.98) | −180.12, 171.08 |
| Rim area (µm2) | 444491.31 | −2900.64 | 0.99 (0.98–1.00) | −60257.75, 54456.47 |
| Nasal retinal thickness (µm) | 283.82 | −1.27 | 0.87 (0.68–0.95) | −32.02, 29.48 |
| Temporal retinal thickness (µm) | 295.84 | −0.55 | 0.94 (0.87–0.97) | −13.27, 12.17 |
| Nasal RNFL thickness (µm) | 70.22 | 1.86 | 0.81 (0.56–0.92) | −37.67, 41.39 |
| Temporal RNFL thickness (µm) | 57.61 | 1.22 | 0.77 (0.55–0.89) | −20.77, 23.21 |
| Nasal BMO (µm) | 417.20 | −3.23 | 0.96 (0.91–0.98) | −67.38, 60.92 |
| Temporal BMO (µm) | 295.24 | 1.87 | 0.97 (0.94–0.99) | −32.61, 36.35 |
Fifty-four images from 20 children were included; mean difference in OCT parameters was derived from Image 1 versus Image 2, where both images were taken in the same eye on the same visit. The ICCs were obtained using a single-measure, two-way mixed effects model. CI, confidence interval; BMO, Bruch's membrane opening.
Figure 4.Variation in optic cup morphology. Patient A has a normal ONH with an easily identifiable cup in the form of a parabolic curve. Patient B has a swollen ONH, but the cup is still identifiable as a parabolic curve (blue arrowhead and delineation). Patient C has a swollen ONH, but the cup is more difficult to identify and landmark as the swelling has interrupted the typical parabolic curve (gold arrowheads and delineation). All three patients were included in the repeatability analysis. Patients B and C had intracranial hypertension proven on invasive intracranial pressure monitoring.