Comparison of Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer and Ganglion Cell-Inner Plexiform Layer Thickness Values Using Spectral-Domain and Swept-Source OCT.
Journal
Translational vision science & technology
ISSN: 2164-2591
Titre abrégé: Transl Vis Sci Technol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101595919
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2022
01 06 2022
Historique:
entrez:
29
6
2022
pubmed:
30
6
2022
medline:
2
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL) and macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (mGCIPL) thickness measurements obtained with spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and swept-source OCT (SS-OCT) using an OCT-angiography scanning protocol, and their ability to distinguish among patients with glaucoma, glaucoma suspects (GS), and healthy controls (HC). Cross-sectional study of 196 eyes (81 glaucoma, 48 GS, and 67 HC) of 119 participants. Participants underwent peripapillary and macular OCT with SD-OCT and SS-OCT. Parameters of interest were average and sector-wise pRNFL and mGCIPL thickness. Inter-device agreement was investigated with Bland-Altman statistics. Conversion formulas were developed with linear regression. Diagnostic performances were evaluated with area under the receiver operating characteristic curves. Both SD-OCT and SS-OCT detected a significant pRNFL and mGCIPL thinning in glaucoma patients compared to HC and GS for almost all study sectors. A strong linear relationship between the two devices was present for all quadrants/sectors (R2 ≥ 0.81, P < 0.001), except for the nasal (R2 = 0.49, P < 0.001) and temporal (R2 = 0.62, P < 0.001) pRNFL quadrants. SD-OCT and SS-OCT measurements had a proportional bias, which could be removed with conversion formulas. Overall, the two devices showed similar diagnostic abilities. Thickness values obtained with SD-OCT and SS-OCT are not directly interchangeable but potentially interconvertible. Both devices have a similar ability to discriminate glaucoma patients from GS and healthy subjects. OCT-Angiography scans can be reliably used to obtain structural metrics in glaucoma patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35767273
pii: 2783444
doi: 10.1167/tvst.11.6.27
pmc: PMC9251790
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
27Références
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014 Apr 29;55(6):3439-46
pubmed: 24781941
Biometrics. 1997 Jun;53(2):567-78
pubmed: 9192452
Ophthalmology. 2005 Mar;112(3):391-400
pubmed: 15745764
Ophthalmology. 2020 Aug;127(8):1043-1052
pubmed: 32085875
Br J Ophthalmol. 2014 Jul;98 Suppl 2:ii15-9
pubmed: 24357497
Can J Ophthalmol. 2009 Jun;44(3):297-307
pubmed: 19491986
Br J Ophthalmol. 2020 Dec;104(12):1710-1716
pubmed: 32122913
J Glaucoma. 2000 Feb;9(1):34-7
pubmed: 10708229
Ophthalmology. 2019 Sep;126(9):1315-1323
pubmed: 30953743
Br J Ophthalmol. 2020 Jul;104(7):974-979
pubmed: 31585965
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2022 Apr 01;140(4):319-326
pubmed: 35201270
Br J Ophthalmol. 2009 Jun;93(6):775-81
pubmed: 19304586
Opt Express. 2009 Mar 2;17(5):3997-4003
pubmed: 19259241
J Glaucoma. 2014 Jun-Jul;23(5):299-306
pubmed: 23377582
Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench. 2012 Spring;5(2):79-83
pubmed: 24834204
J Glaucoma. 2009 Mar;18(3):213-6
pubmed: 19295375
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010 Nov;51(11):5724-30
pubmed: 20574014
PLoS One. 2016 Jan 26;11(1):e0147964
pubmed: 26812064
Eye (Lond). 2018 Sep;32(9):1483-1492
pubmed: 29789659
Am J Ophthalmol. 2005 Jul;140(1):165-6
pubmed: 16038674
Ophthalmology. 2017 Dec;124(12S):S57-S65
pubmed: 29157363
Am J Ophthalmol. 2020 Oct;218:182-191
pubmed: 32574775
Am J Ophthalmol. 2021 Jan;221:39-47
pubmed: 32828878
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010 Aug;51(8):4075-83
pubmed: 20237247
J Glaucoma. 2015 Jun-Jul;24(5):e109-15
pubmed: 25517254
Am J Ophthalmol. 2004 May;137(5):863-71
pubmed: 15126151
Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2020 Nov 05;9(2):58
pubmed: 33224631
J Glaucoma. 2008 Mar;17(2):122-7
pubmed: 18344758
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017 Nov 1;58(13):5713-5722
pubmed: 29114838
Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2019 May 30;8(3):28
pubmed: 31171995
Ophthalmology. 2011 Feb;118(2):241-8.e1
pubmed: 20920824
Am J Ophthalmol. 2020 Sep;217:131-139
pubmed: 32222368
Ophthalmology. 2003 Feb;110(2):340-4
pubmed: 12578778
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Oct 21;52(11):8323-9
pubmed: 21917932
PLoS One. 2015 May 15;10(5):e0125957
pubmed: 25978420
Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2021 Dec 1;10(14):20
pubmed: 34928324
Korean J Ophthalmol. 2019 Aug;33(4):315-325
pubmed: 31389207
Arch Ophthalmol. 2005 Apr;123(4):464-70
pubmed: 15824218
Am J Ophthalmol. 2015 Mar;159(3):565-76.e2
pubmed: 25498118
Ophthalmology. 2009 Jul;116(7):1271-7
pubmed: 19395086
Ophthalmology. 2011 Jul;118(7):1334-9
pubmed: 21377735
J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Apr;54(4):343-9
pubmed: 11297884
Yonsei Med J. 2018 Sep;59(7):887-896
pubmed: 30091323
Ophthalmology. 2012 Jun;119(6):1151-8
pubmed: 22365056
Ophthalmology. 2009 Jul;116(7):1257-63, 1263.e1-2
pubmed: 19464061
Am J Ophthalmol. 2009 Jul;148(1):148-54
pubmed: 19375690
Korean J Ophthalmol. 2016 Apr;30(2):140-7
pubmed: 27051263
Ophthalmology. 2007 Jun;114(6):1046-52
pubmed: 17210181
Ophthalmology. 2021 Jan;128(1):P71-P150
pubmed: 34933745
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2013 May-Jun;23(3):289-95
pubmed: 23225090
Br J Ophthalmol. 2014 Mar;98(3):322-8
pubmed: 24307717
Ophthalmology. 2021 Jan;128(1):e7-e8
pubmed: 32921546
J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2014 Jan;9(1):31-7
pubmed: 24982729
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012 Aug 31;53(9):5912-20
pubmed: 22871835
Am J Ophthalmol. 2005 Jan;139(1):44-55
pubmed: 15652827
Br J Ophthalmol. 2023 Jan;107(1):49-55
pubmed: 34301610
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 18;13(10):e0205773
pubmed: 30335815
Arch Ophthalmol. 2009 Dec;127(12):1603-9
pubmed: 20008715