A comparison of optic disc area measured by confocal scanning laser tomography versus Bruch's membrane opening area measured using optical coherence tomography.
BMO-OCT
CSLT
Glaucoma
Macrodiscs
Journal
BMC ophthalmology
ISSN: 1471-2415
Titre abrégé: BMC Ophthalmol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Jan 2021
12 Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
09
06
2020
accepted:
29
12
2020
entrez:
12
1
2021
pubmed:
13
1
2021
medline:
11
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Precise optic disc size measurements based on anatomically exact disc margins are fundamental for a correct assessment of glaucoma suspects. Computerized imaging techniques, such as confocal-scanning-laser-tomography (CSLT), which applies operator defined boundaries and optical-coherence-tomography (OCT), which incorporates an alternative detectable landmark (Bruch's-membrane-opening (BMO)), have simplified the planimetry of the optic disc and BMO-area, respectively. This study's objectives are to compare both modalities for area and to define a threshold for macro-BMO using BMO-OCT. Retrospectively, patients that simultaneously received CSLT and BMO-OCT scans were included. Their images were correlated and agreement was determined using Bland-Altman-analysis. The diagnostic power of a macro-BMO threshold using OCT was derived after creating a receiver-operating-characteristics-curve using the well-established analogous CSLT threshold (2.43 mm Our study included 373 eyes with a median optic disc area by CSLT/ BMO-area by OCT of 2.56 mm Area measurements (CSLT optic disc area vs. BMO-area by OCT) showed a systematic deviation with a divergent tendency with increasing size. Our mathematical equation offers an estimated comparison of these anatomically diverse entities. Considering BMO-OCT´ anatomical accuracy, the 2.19 mm
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Precise optic disc size measurements based on anatomically exact disc margins are fundamental for a correct assessment of glaucoma suspects. Computerized imaging techniques, such as confocal-scanning-laser-tomography (CSLT), which applies operator defined boundaries and optical-coherence-tomography (OCT), which incorporates an alternative detectable landmark (Bruch's-membrane-opening (BMO)), have simplified the planimetry of the optic disc and BMO-area, respectively. This study's objectives are to compare both modalities for area and to define a threshold for macro-BMO using BMO-OCT.
METHODS
METHODS
Retrospectively, patients that simultaneously received CSLT and BMO-OCT scans were included. Their images were correlated and agreement was determined using Bland-Altman-analysis. The diagnostic power of a macro-BMO threshold using OCT was derived after creating a receiver-operating-characteristics-curve using the well-established analogous CSLT threshold (2.43 mm
RESULTS
RESULTS
Our study included 373 eyes with a median optic disc area by CSLT/ BMO-area by OCT of 2.56 mm
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Area measurements (CSLT optic disc area vs. BMO-area by OCT) showed a systematic deviation with a divergent tendency with increasing size. Our mathematical equation offers an estimated comparison of these anatomically diverse entities. Considering BMO-OCT´ anatomical accuracy, the 2.19 mm
Identifiants
pubmed: 33430821
doi: 10.1186/s12886-020-01799-x
pii: 10.1186/s12886-020-01799-x
pmc: PMC7802149
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
31Références
Ophthalmology. 1989 Jan;96(1):20-5
pubmed: 2919048
PLoS One. 2018 Jan 17;13(1):e0190273
pubmed: 29342153
Eye (Lond). 2018 Feb;32(2):314-323
pubmed: 29386616
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009 May;50(5):2165-74
pubmed: 19136694
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2017 Jul;234(7):918-923
pubmed: 27479577
J Med Life. 2010 Oct-Dec;3(4):359-64
pubmed: 21254731
J Glaucoma. 2009 Oct-Nov;18(8):571-5
pubmed: 19826383
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007 Jul;48(7):3178-83
pubmed: 17591887
Lancet. 2004 May 22;363(9422):1711-20
pubmed: 15158634
Arch Ophthalmol. 1979 Aug;97(8):1444-8
pubmed: 464866
Am J Ophthalmol. 1999 Oct;128(4):515-7
pubmed: 10577600
Br J Ophthalmol. 1998 Apr;82(4):362-6
pubmed: 9640181
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1982 Apr;180(4):286-9
pubmed: 7087358
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2014 Feb;231(2):164-9
pubmed: 23775290
Arch Ophthalmol. 1969 Oct;82(4):506-30
pubmed: 4981187
Ophthalmology. 2012 Apr;119(4):738-47
pubmed: 22222150
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007 Jul;48(7):3195-208
pubmed: 17591889
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009 Oct;50(10):4709-18
pubmed: 19443718
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1994 Jun;232(6):361-7
pubmed: 8082844
Am J Ophthalmol. 2003 Feb;135(2):226-8
pubmed: 12566030
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012 Apr 18;53(4):1852-60
pubmed: 22410561
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1992 May;33(6):2012-8
pubmed: 1582806
Arch Ophthalmol. 1991 Jan;109(1):77-83
pubmed: 1987954