Longitudinal Comparison of Constant Artifacts in Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography in Patients with Posterior Uveitis Compared to Healthy Subjects.
artifacts
longitudinal
optical coherence tomography angiography
uveitis posterior
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 Sep 2022
13 Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
26
07
2022
revised:
27
08
2022
accepted:
13
09
2022
entrez:
23
9
2022
pubmed:
24
9
2022
medline:
24
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Background: Knowledge about artifacts in optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) is important to avoid misinterpretations. An overview of possible artifacts in posterior uveitis provides important information for interpretations. Methods: In this monocentric prospective study, OCTA images from a total of 102 eyes of 54 patients with posterior uveitis, and an age-matched control group including 34 healthy subjects (67 eyes), were evaluated (day 0, month 3, month 6). We assigned different artifacts to distinct layers. Various types of artifacts were examined in different retinal layers. The χ2 test for the comparison between the control and uveitis group and Cochran’s Q test for the longitudinal comparison within the uveitis group were used. Results: A total of 2238 images were evaluated; 1836 from uveitis patients and 402 from healthy subjects. A total of 2193 artifacts were revealed. Projection (812 [36.3%]), segmentation (579 [25.9%]), shadowing (404 [18.1%]), and blink artifacts (297 [13.3%]) were the most common artifact types. The uveitis group displayed significantly more segmentation artifacts and projection artifacts (p < 0.001). No segmentation artifacts were documented in healthy subjects. The consecutive examinations within the uveitis group revealed the same artifact types without significance (p > 0.1). Conclusions: The uveitis patients showed more segmentation and projection artifacts than the control group. Within the uveitis group, artifacts remained longitudinally constant in terms of artifact type and pattern. The artifacts therefore appear to be reproducible on an individual level.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36143023
pii: jcm11185376
doi: 10.3390/jcm11185376
pmc: PMC9502304
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2020 Feb 1;138(2):119-126
pubmed: 31804666
Biomed Opt Express. 2015 Aug 25;6(9):3564-76
pubmed: 26417524
Br J Ophthalmol. 2017 May;101(5):564-568
pubmed: 27439739
Biomed Opt Express. 2017 Feb 15;8(3):1536-1548
pubmed: 28663848
Biomed Opt Express. 2016 Sep 06;7(10):3905-3915
pubmed: 27867702
Biomed Opt Express. 2016 Feb 09;7(3):816-28
pubmed: 27231591
Br J Ophthalmol. 2020 Feb;104(2):162-166
pubmed: 31036586
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2017 Sep;234(9):1109-1118
pubmed: 28628928
Biomed Opt Express. 2015 Sep 28;6(10):4130-43
pubmed: 26504660
J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2021 Apr 29;16(2):271-286
pubmed: 34055264
Curr Eye Res. 2019 May;44(5):558-563
pubmed: 30624088
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 25;14(1):e0210505
pubmed: 30682050
Retina. 2015 Nov;35(11):2163-80
pubmed: 26428607