November 2011
Volume 52, Issue 12
Free
Retina  |   November 2011
Effects of Age, Sex, and Axial Length on the Three-Dimensional Profile of Normal Macular Layer Structures
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Sotaro Ooto
    From the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan;
  • Masanori Hangai
    From the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan;
  • Atsuo Tomidokoro
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Tokyo, Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan;
  • Hitomi Saito
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Tokyo, Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan;
  • Makoto Araie
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Tokyo, Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan;
  • Tomohiro Otani
    Department of Ophthalmology, Gunma University School of Medicine, Maebashi, Japan;
  • Shoji Kishi
    Department of Ophthalmology, Gunma University School of Medicine, Maebashi, Japan;
  • Kenji Matsushita
    Department of Ophthalmology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Japan;
  • Naoyuki Maeda
    Department of Ophthalmology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Japan;
  • Motohiro Shirakashi
    Division of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata, Japan;
  • Haruki Abe
    Division of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata, Japan;
  • Shinji Ohkubo
    Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, Kanazawa, Japan;
  • Kazuhisa Sugiyama
    Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, Kanazawa, Japan;
  • Aiko Iwase
    Tajimi Iwase Eye Clinic, Tajimi, Japan
  • Nagahisa Yoshimura
    From the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan;
  • Corresponding author: Sotaro Ooto, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawahara-cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8507, Japan; ohoto@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science November 2011, Vol.52, 8769-8779. doi:10.1167/iovs.11-8388
  • Views
  • PDF
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Sotaro Ooto, Masanori Hangai, Atsuo Tomidokoro, Hitomi Saito, Makoto Araie, Tomohiro Otani, Shoji Kishi, Kenji Matsushita, Naoyuki Maeda, Motohiro Shirakashi, Haruki Abe, Shinji Ohkubo, Kazuhisa Sugiyama, Aiko Iwase, Nagahisa Yoshimura; Effects of Age, Sex, and Axial Length on the Three-Dimensional Profile of Normal Macular Layer Structures. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011;52(12):8769-8779. doi: 10.1167/iovs.11-8388.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose.: To identify sex-related differences and age-related changes in individual retinal layer thicknesses in a population of healthy eyes across the lifespan, using spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT).

Methods.: In seven institutes in Japan, mean thicknesses of the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL), ganglion cell layer (GCL), inner plexiform layer (IPL), inner nuclear layer (INL), outer plexiform layer (OPL), outer nuclear layer (ONL), photoreceptor inner segment (IS), and photoreceptor outer segment (OS) were measured using SD-OCT with a new automated segmentation protocol in 256 healthy subjects.

Results.: Interoperator coefficients of variability for measurements of each layer ranged from 0.012 to 0.038. The RNFL, GCL, IPL, and INL were thinnest in the foveal area, whereas the OPL+ONL and OS were thickest in this area. Mean thicknesses of the INL and the OPL+ONL were significantly greater in men (P = 0.002 and 0.001, respectively). However, mean RNFL thickness was greater in women (P = 0.006). Thicknesses of the RNFL, GCL, IPL, INL, and IS correlated negatively with age. Thickness of the OPL+ONL was not correlated with age, and thickness of the OS correlated positively with age. Inner retinal (RNFL+GCL+IPL) thickness over the whole macula correlated negatively with age (P < 0.001), but outer retinal (OPL+ONL+IS+OS) thickness did not. Thicknesses of layers did not correlate with axial length.

Conclusions.: Macular layer thicknesses measured on SD-OCT images in healthy eyes showed significant variations by sex and age. These findings should inform macular layer thickness analyses in SD-OCT studies of retinal diseases and glaucoma.

Measurement of retinal thickness in the macula using optical coherence tomography (OCT) is an established method for diagnosing and monitoring macular edema and evaluating the efficacy of medical and surgical treatments for macular diseases. Recently, advances in OCT have allowed measurement of the thickness of specific retinal layers, which is useful for diagnosing and monitoring pathologic changes in various ocular diseases. 1 10 Studies have found that the thickness of the photoreceptor layer, measured by ultra–high-resolution OCT, is correlated with the severity of photoreceptor loss associated with decreased visual acuity in retinitis pigmentosa. 1,2 Studies using spectral-domain (SD) OCT showed that the thickness of the outer nuclear layer (ONL) in the fovea correlates with visual acuity in eyes with central serous chorioretinopathy, 3,4 polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy, 5 and epiretinal membrane. 6,7 Studies in which a layer segmentation algorithm was used with time-domain (TD) OCT and SD-OCT to automatically measure the combined thickness of the three innermost retinal layers (retinal nerve fiber layer [RNFL] + ganglion cell layer [GCL] + inner plexiform layer [IPL]), which are the most susceptible to glaucomatous damage, differed in the thickness of these layers between glaucomatous and healthy eyes. 8,9 In a study using SD-OCT, GCL thickness was found to be reduced in patients with type 1 diabetes who had no or minimal diabetic retinopathy. 10 As these studies demonstrate, measuring the thickness of individual retinal layers is becoming a powerful tool for assessing and monitoring changes in the macula resulting from retinal diseases, glaucoma, and optic neuropathy. 
The usefulness of these technologies is predicated on an understanding of the normal anatomy of the many layers in the macula, each of which has its own normal 3D shape and may be affected in various ways by disease. However, to our knowledge, no normative database exists against which thickness maps of individual retinal layers in diseased eyes can be compared. 
Macular thickness measurements have been reported in healthy eyes by TD-OCT and SD-OCT 11 28 and by three-dimensional raster scans. 11 15 Earlier studies using TD-OCT 16 22 or SD-OCT 23 28 in healthy eyes reported changes in the macular profile in relation to factors such as age, sex, and axial length. It was only recently, however, that an algorithm was developed for SD-OCT that allows for measurement of the thickness of each macular layer in each of the nine areas of the macula. 29 This development provides the unique opportunity to profile the 3D anatomy of individual macular layers. 
In this study, we used SD-OCT with the new automated retinal layer segmentation algorithm 29 and a raster scanning protocol to measure the thickness of individual retinal layers in 256 healthy eyes of men and women in six age groups, with the objective of developing a database for assessing and monitoring intraretinal pathologies when using SD-OCT instruments. We evaluated mean measurements in nine macular areas/sectors on the basis of areas defined in the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) and evaluated the results according to subject age, sex, and axial length of eyes. 
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
In this prospective, cross-sectional, multicenter study, data were collected at seven clinical centers in Japan—Kyoto University (Kyoto, Japan), University of Tokyo (Tokyo, Japan), Gunma University (Maebashi, Japan), Osaka University (Suita, Japan), Niigata University (Niigata, Japan), Kanazawa University (Kanazawa, Japan), and Tajimi Municipal Hospital (Tajimi, Japan). The Institutional Review Board and Ethics Committee of each participating center approved the study, which adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki, and written informed consent was obtained from each subject. 
Self-reported ophthalmologically healthy men and women 20 years of age and older were recruited for the study to ensure an even distribution of subjects by sex in six age groups (20–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, and 70+ years). Ocular examinations at the first visit included autorefractometry/keratometry, uncorrected and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measurements using a 5-m Landolt chart, axial length measurement using an optical biometer (IOL Master; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA), slit-lamp examination, intraocular pressure measurement using Goldmann applanation tonometry, funduscopy, and visual field testing using a field analyzer (Humphrey Field Analyzer [HFA]; Carl Zeiss Meditec) with 24–2 Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm Standard Strategy. 
Exclusion criteria were contraindication to dilation, BCVA worse than 20/25, refractive error >5.0 or <−6.0 diopters, intraocular pressure ≥22 mm Hg to exclude glaucoma and ocular hypertension (high intraocular pressure may influence retinal thickness 30 ), unreliable HFA results (fixation loss or >33% false-positive or false-negative results), abnormal HFA findings suggesting glaucoma according to the criteria of Anderson and Patella, 31 abnormal visual field loss consistent with ocular disease, history of intraocular surgery, evidence of vitreoretinal disease, and diabetes mellitus or other systemic disease that might affect the eye. 
Eyes were scanned by experienced operators using 3D OCT (OCT-1000; Topcon, Tokyo, Japan) after pupil dilation with 1% tropicamide. Color fundus photographs were taken immediately after SD-OCT scanning. 
Three glaucoma experts (MA, HA, AI) and two macular experts (NY, SK) examined all the color fundus photographs and reached consensus on whether an eye had evidence of glaucomatous optic neuropathy or another optic nerve abnormalities or whether it had evidence of retinal disease, respectively; such eyes were excluded. 
SD-OCT Measurements
SD-OCT examinations were performed according to the following scan protocol selected by the study group. Three-dimensional imaging data were acquired using a raster scan protocol of 512 × 128 (horizontal × vertical) axial scans per image (total, 65,536 axial scans/image). Each 3D raster scan covered a 6 × 6-mm area centered at the fixation point in the posterior pole and required ∼2.4 seconds for completion. Accurate scan lengths were obtained by correcting the magnification effect in each eye using the SD-OCT equipment manufacturer's formula (modified Littman's method 32 ) based on that eye's refractive error, corneal radius, and axial length. Only high-quality images with a Q-factor score >65 were used. 
To assess the interobserver reproducibility of the macular thickness measurements, the same macular scan protocol was performed separately by two operators on the same day on 46 subjects (21 men, 25 women; age, 43.0 ± 15.4 years). 
Measurements of Individual Retinal Layer Thickness by Macular Sector
A new algorithm based on a customized edge detector and edge refinement feature was recently developed 29 to automatically calculate mean macular layer thicknesses of individual retinal layers (Fig. 1, Supplementary Movie S1) in nine separate areas (based on ETDRS sectors) within the macula (Fig. 2). All SD-OCT B-scan images were sent to the Kyoto University OCT Reading Center at the Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, where the novel multilayer segmentation algorithm was used to calculate the thickness of each retinal layer—RNFL, GCL, IPL, inner nuclear layer (INL), outer plexiform layer (OPL) + ONL, photoreceptor inner segment (IS), and photoreceptor outer segment (OS) (Fig. 1, Supplementary Movie S1). 
Figure 1.
 
Delineation of retinal layers on a 3D SD-OCT image. Thickness was measured between yellow lines for the RNFL, GCL, IPL, INL, OPL+ONL, IS (distance between the external limiting membrane and the inner border of the highly reflective line representing the inner and outer segment junction line), and OS (distance between the inner border of the inner and outer segment junction line and the inner border of the RPE).
Figure 1.
 
Delineation of retinal layers on a 3D SD-OCT image. Thickness was measured between yellow lines for the RNFL, GCL, IPL, INL, OPL+ONL, IS (distance between the external limiting membrane and the inner border of the highly reflective line representing the inner and outer segment junction line), and OS (distance between the inner border of the inner and outer segment junction line and the inner border of the RPE).
Figure 2.
 
Delineation of the nine macular sectors, according to the ETDRS, within which we measured macular layer thickness. Green box: the 6 × 6-mm area for 3D raster scanning.
Figure 2.
 
Delineation of the nine macular sectors, according to the ETDRS, within which we measured macular layer thickness. Green box: the 6 × 6-mm area for 3D raster scanning.
The 3D B-scan images were visually inspected and excluded if there was any evidence of algorithm failure, such as inaccurately drawn lines marking the boundaries between retinal layers. Each B-scan was checked by an investigator (SO), and only images with appropriate segmentation lines were included in this study. The segmentation algorithm allows for manual corrections, and minor errors were corrected manually. 
On each B-scan included in the study, the mean thickness of each retinal layer in each of the nine macular sectors was calculated. First, the central fovea on each image was manually registered, if necessary, to coincide with the central circle on the ETDRS segmentation diagram (Fig. 2). Because inner retinal layers are nearly absent in the fovea, only the outer retinal layer thicknesses were analyzed in this 1-mm diameter area in the center of the fovea. The mean thickness of each retinal layer was measured in four sectors (superior, inferior, nasal, and temporal) of the “inner ring” 1 to 3 mm from the center of the fovea and the “outer ring” 3 to 6 mm from the center of the fovea (Fig. 2). 
Statistical Analysis
The effects of age, sex, and axial length on macular layer thickness were analyzed using the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient. For evaluating sex-related differences and comparing retinal thicknesses among sectors, a t-test was used. To evaluate interobserver differences, coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used. Statistical analyses were performed using a statistics software program (SPSS17; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. 
Results
Four hundred sixty-four subjects were initially enrolled in the study, but 189 were excluded, and acceptable OCT images were not obtained in 19 subjects. Thus, 256 subjects (130 men [51%], 126 women [49%]) ranging in age from 20 to 77 years (mean, 50.5 years) were included in the analysis. When both eyes qualified for the study, one eye was randomly chosen for inclusion. As shown in Table 1, men and women were equally represented in each age group. Differences between them in mean age and axial length were not significant (P = 0.556 and P = 0.080, respectively). 
Table 1.
 
Characteristics of 256 Subjects/Healthy Eyes
Table 1.
 
Characteristics of 256 Subjects/Healthy Eyes
Age Group (y) No. Men/Women (ratio) Mean Refractive Error (diopters) Mean Axial Length (mm) Mean IOP (mm Hg)
20–29 40 19/21 (0.9) −1.5 ± 1.6 24.1 ± 0.9 13.8 ± 2.0
30–39 40 21/19 (1.0) −1.3 ± 1.1 24.0 ± 0.9 14.3 ± 2.5
40–49 36 20/16 (1.3) −1.1 ± 1.1 23.9 ± 0.8 14.5 ± 2.3
50–59 47 21/26 (0.8) −0.7 ± 1.5 23.7 ± 1.0 13.9 ± 2.6
60–69 57 29/28 (1.0) 0.3 ± 1.1 23.4 ± 0.8 14.7 ± 2.3
70+ 36 20/16 (1.3) 0.7 ± 1.6 23.2 ± 0.9 13.9 ± 2.4
Total 256 130/126 (1.1) −0.5 ± 1.6 23.7 ± 0.9 14.2 ± 2.4
Table 2 shows the reproducibility of measurements of retinal layer thickness. For measurements over the entire macular area, CVs ranged from 0.012 to 0.038; for measurements of various layers, ICCs ranged from 0.931 to 0.988. 
Table 2.
 
Reproducibility of Measurements of Normal Macular Layer Thickness Obtained Using 3D-OCT with a Multilayer Segmentation Algorithm
Table 2.
 
Reproducibility of Measurements of Normal Macular Layer Thickness Obtained Using 3D-OCT with a Multilayer Segmentation Algorithm
Macular Area CV ICC
Center Inner Ring Outer Ring Whole Macula Center Inner Ring Outer Ring Whole Macula
RNFL N/A 0.030 0.035 0.031 N/A 0.949 0.961 0.959
GCL N/A 0.009 0.020 0.012 N/A 0.973 0.980 0.988
IPL N/A 0.014 0.024 0.016 N/A 0.973 0.987 0.987
INL N/A 0.011 0.017 0.012 N/A 0.981 0.984 0.987
OPL+ONL 0.023 0.013 0.013 0.015 0.992 0.984 0.978 0.982
IS 0.025 0.027 0.035 0.029 0.986 0.866 0.939 0.931
OS 0.060 0.044 0.074 0.038 0.972 0.945 0.943 0.945
Mean retinal layer thicknesses for all subjects are shown in Figure 3 and Table 3. Thickness maps (Fig. 3) show vertical symmetry for all retinal layers. In the central fovea, the RNFL, GCL, IPL, and INL became so thin that their thicknesses were nonmeasurable, and the OPL+ONL and OS were at their thickest. The IS displayed nearly uniform thickness in all areas. Areas of maximal thickness of the GCL, IPL, and INL formed circular or “C” patterns in the parafovea. In the inner ring, mean thicknesses of the GCL and INL in the nasal quadrants were significantly greater than in the temporal quadrants (Table 3; P < 0.001 for both). 
Figure 3.
 
Mean thickness maps for each retinal layer in 256 ophthalmologically healthy subjects. The color spectrum to the right of each image shows the thickness range for the layer measured in that image. Right: nasal; left: temporal. (A) RNFL, (B) GCL, (C) IPL, (D) INL, (E) OPL+ONL, (F) IS, and (G) OS.
Figure 3.
 
Mean thickness maps for each retinal layer in 256 ophthalmologically healthy subjects. The color spectrum to the right of each image shows the thickness range for the layer measured in that image. Right: nasal; left: temporal. (A) RNFL, (B) GCL, (C) IPL, (D) INL, (E) OPL+ONL, (F) IS, and (G) OS.
Table 3.
 
Mean Retinal Layer Thickness Measurements in Macular EDTRS Sectors
Table 3.
 
Mean Retinal Layer Thickness Measurements in Macular EDTRS Sectors
Retinal Layer Center Inner Ring Outer Ring Whole Macula
Upper Lower Nasal Temporal Upper Lower Nasal Temporal
RNFL N/A 25.0 ± 3.3 25.8 ± 3.0 21.9 ± 3.4 17.7 ± 2.7 37.9 ± 5.4 39.1 ± 6.0 48.5 ± 7.6 19.4 ± 2.5 32.2 ± 3.7
GCL N/A 59.3 ± 6.9 58.7 ± 6.5 59.9 ± 7.4 54.6 ± 7.1 36.6 ± 3.1 34.6 ± 2.8 40.7 ± 4.0 39.1 ± 4.0 42.2 ± 3.0
IPL N/A 36.9 ± 3.4 37.4 ± 3.5 35.8 ± 3.5 35.4 ± 3.6 30.9 ± 3.1 29.0 ± 2.7 32.2 ± 3.3 34.7 ± 3.2 32.6 ± 2.3
INL N/A 39.3 ± 3.9 39.7 ± 3.9 41.1 ± 4.1 37.1 ± 4.1 31.4 ± 2.6 30.6 ± 2.5 33.5 ± 2.9 32.6 ± 2.9 33.4 ± 2.1
OPL+ONL 103.9 ± 10.6 91.8 ± 8.5 88.3 ± 8.3 94.1 ± 8.8 93.1 ± 9.1 74.0 ± 7.3 66.5 ± 6.3 74.3 ± 7.4 72.2 ± 7.6 77.6 ± 5.4
IS 26.9 ± 2.3 23.1 ± 3.3 22.8 ± 2.5 23.7 ± 2.6 24.1 ± 3.2 23.0 ± 3.5 22.1 ± 2.5 22.1 ± 2.8 23.8 ± 4.4 23.1 ± 2.5
OS 39.8 ± 8.2 39.1 ± 7.2 38.5 ± 6.9 37.7 ± 7.8 37.7 ± 7.5 38.2 ± 5.3 37.1 ± 4.2 36.5 ± 5.3 37.9 ± 5.5 37.8 ± 4.8
Mean thicknesses of the INL and OPL+ONL were significantly greater in men than in women (P = 0.002 and P = 0.001, respectively; Fig. 4, Table 4). However, in women, the mean RNFL thickness was greater (P = 0.006), especially in the peripheral macula (outer ring) (P = 0.001) (Fig. 4, Table 4). 
Figure 4.
 
Mean thickness maps for men (left) and women (right), calculated based on all subjects (n = 130 men, n = 126 women), for (A) RNFL, (B) INL, and (C) OPL+ONL. The color spectrum to the right of each image shows the thickness range for the layer measured in that image. Right: nasal; left: temporal.
Figure 4.
 
Mean thickness maps for men (left) and women (right), calculated based on all subjects (n = 130 men, n = 126 women), for (A) RNFL, (B) INL, and (C) OPL+ONL. The color spectrum to the right of each image shows the thickness range for the layer measured in that image. Right: nasal; left: temporal.
Table 4.
 
Sex Differences in Mean Macular Layer Thicknesses
Table 4.
 
Sex Differences in Mean Macular Layer Thicknesses
Macular Layer Total (n = 256) Men (n = 130) Women (n = 126) P *
RNFL
    Whole 32.2 ± 3.7 31.6 ± 3.7 32.8 ± 3.7 0.006†
    Inner ring 22.7 ± 2.3 22.7 ± 2.4 22.7 ± 2.3 0.875
    Outer ring 36.3 ± 4.5 35.4 ± 4.4 37.2 ± 4.4 0.001†
GCL
    Whole 42.2 ± 3.0 42.2 ± 3.2 42.2 ± 2.8 0.994
    Inner ring 58.3 ± 5.6 58.4 ± 6.1 58.2 ± 5.1 0.785
    Outer ring 37.9 ± 2.5 37.9 ± 2.5 37.9 ± 2.4 0.989
IPL
    Whole 32.6 ± 2.3 32.8 ± 2.4 32.5 ± 2.2 0.349
    Inner ring 36.5 ± 2.4 36.8 ± 2.6 36.2 ± 2.3 0.032†
    Outer ring 31.8 ± 2.4 31.9 ± 2.5 31.7 ± 2.4 0.615
INL
    Whole 33.4 ± 2.1 33.8 ± 2.0 33.0 ± 2.1 0.002†
    Inner ring 39.4 ± 3.0 40.2 ± 3.0 38.7 ± 2.7 <0.001†
    Outer ring 32.2 ± 2.0 32.4 ± 1.9 31.9 ± 2.1 0.034†
OPL+ONL
    Whole 77.6 ± 5.4 78.6 ± 5.4 76.4 ± 5.2 0.001†
    Center 103.9 ± 10.6 106.0 ± 9.0 102.4 ± 7.5 0.001†
    Inner ring 92.2 ± 6.3 93.6 ± 6.6 90.6 ± 5.7 <0.001†
    Outer ring 72.1 ± 5.4 73.0 ± 5.3 70.9 ± 5.3 0.002†
IS
    Whole 23.1 ± 2.5 22.9 ± 1.9 23.2 ± 3.0 0.368
    Center 26.9 ± 2.3 27.0 ± 1.6 27.0 ± 1.7 0.933
    Inner ring 23.5 ± 2.3 23.3 ± 1.6 23.7 ± 2.9 0.233
    Outer ring 22.8 ± 2.8 22.7 ± 2.2 22.9 ± 3.2 0.441
OS
    Whole 37.8 ± 4.8 38.0 ± 4.6 37.6 ± 5.1 0.548
    Center 39.8 ± 8.2 39.6 ± 7.4 40.2 ± 8.2 0.536
    Inner ring 38.4 ± 6.7 38.3 ± 6.5 38.5 ± 7.0 0.814
    Outer ring 37.5 ± 4.4 37.8 ± 4.1 37.2 ± 4.7 0.301
As Figure 5 shows, thicknesses of the RNFL, GCL, IPL, INL, and IS decreased with increasing age. The thickness of the OPL+ONL in the peripheral macula did not vary with age; however, foveal thickness increased with increasing age, as did OS thickness. 
Figure 5.
 
Mean thickness maps of 80 subjects 20 to 39 years of age (left), 83 subjects 40 to 59 years of age (middle), and 93 subjects 60 years and older (right) for (A) RNFL, (B) GCL, (C) IPL, (D) INL, (E) OPL+ONL, (F) IS, and (G) OS. The color spectrum to the right of each image shows the thickness range for the layer measured in that image. Right: nasal; left: temporal.
Figure 5.
 
Mean thickness maps of 80 subjects 20 to 39 years of age (left), 83 subjects 40 to 59 years of age (middle), and 93 subjects 60 years and older (right) for (A) RNFL, (B) GCL, (C) IPL, (D) INL, (E) OPL+ONL, (F) IS, and (G) OS. The color spectrum to the right of each image shows the thickness range for the layer measured in that image. Right: nasal; left: temporal.
Table 5 shows that after adjusting for axial length, the thicknesses of the RNFL, GCL, IPL, INL, and IS correlated negatively with age. Age-related losses in the thicknesses of the RNFL, GCL, IPL, INL, and IS over the whole macula were −0.05, −0.07, −0.05, −0.03, and −0.05 μm/year, respectively. OS thickness correlated positively with age, as did the thickness of the OPL+ONL in the central foveal sector. Supplementary Table S1 shows that after adjusting for axial length, the thicknesses of the GCL, IPL, INL, and IS correlated negatively with age in men and women, whereas RNFL thickness correlated negatively and OS thickness correlated positively with age only in women. 
Table 5.
 
Correlations of Age with Thickness of Macular Layers before (P *) and after (P †) Adjusting for Axial Length
Table 5.
 
Correlations of Age with Thickness of Macular Layers before (P *) and after (P †) Adjusting for Axial Length
Macular Layer Regression R P * P † (adjusted for axial length)
RNFL
    Whole 34.7 − 0.05*age −0.223 <0.001 0.001
    Inner ring 24.5 − 0.04*age −0.253 <0.001 <0.001
    Outer ring 39.0 − 0.05*age −0.196 0.001 0.002
GCL
    Whole 45.6 − 0.07*age −0.383 <0.001 <0.001
    Inner ring 65.4 − 0.14*age −0.414 <0.001 <0.001
    Outer ring 40.3 − 0.05*age −0.327 <0.001 <0.001
IPL
    Whole 35.4 − 0.05*age −0.403 <0.001 <0.001
    Inner ring 38.4 − 0.04*age −0.261 <0.001 <0.001
    Outer ring 34.9 − 0.06*age −0.422 <0.001 <0.001
INL
    Whole 35.1 − 0.03*age −0.261 <0.001 <0.001
    Inner ring 40.2 − 0.01*age −0.087 0.160 0.060
    Outer ring 34.2 − 0.04*age −0.335 <0.001 <0.001
OPL+ONL
    Whole 78.2 − 0.01*age −0.041 0.509 0.485
    Center 100.2 + 0.08*age 0.159 0.010 0.005
    Inner ring 91.3 − 0.02*age −0.045 0.470 0.308
    Outer ring 73.5 − 0.03*age −0.096 0.123 0.128
IS
    Whole 25.4 − 0.05*age −0.306 <0.001 <0.001
    Center 29.3 − 0.05*age −0.445 <0.001 <0.001
    Inner ring 26.1 − 0.05*age −0.370 <0.001 <0.001
    Outer ring 25.1 − 0.04*age −0.270 <0.001 <0.001
OS
    Whole 35.3 + 0.05*age 0.167 0.007 0.002
    Center 35.8 + 0.08*age 0.176 0.004 0.002
    Inner ring 34.8 + 0.07*age 0.173 0.005 0.002
    Outer ring 35.5 + 0.04*age 0.152 0.013 0.004
Figure 6 and Table 6 show thicknesses of the combined inner retinal layers (RNFL, GCL, and IPL), known as the ganglion cell complex (GCC), versus the outer retinal layers (ORL; consisting of the OPL+ONL, IS, and OS). After adjusting for axial length, GCC thickness over the whole macula correlated negatively with age (P < 0.001), but ORL thickness did not (Table 6). 
Figure 6.
 
Mean thickness maps in 80 subjects 20 to 39 years of age (left), 83 subjects 40 to 59 years of age (middle), and 93 subjects 60 years of age and older (right) for the inner retinal sectors. (A) GCC, consisting of the RNFL + GCL + IPL. (B) Outer retinal layers (ORL), consisting of the OPL + IS + OS. The color spectrum to the right of each image shows the thickness range for the layer measured in that image. Right: nasal; left: temporal.
Figure 6.
 
Mean thickness maps in 80 subjects 20 to 39 years of age (left), 83 subjects 40 to 59 years of age (middle), and 93 subjects 60 years of age and older (right) for the inner retinal sectors. (A) GCC, consisting of the RNFL + GCL + IPL. (B) Outer retinal layers (ORL), consisting of the OPL + IS + OS. The color spectrum to the right of each image shows the thickness range for the layer measured in that image. Right: nasal; left: temporal.
Table 6.
 
Correlation between Age and Inner or Outer Retinal Layer Thickness before (P *) and after (P †) Adjusting for Axial Length
Table 6.
 
Correlation between Age and Inner or Outer Retinal Layer Thickness before (P *) and after (P †) Adjusting for Axial Length
Macular Layer Regression R P * P † (adjusted for axial length)
GCC
    Whole 115.8 − 0.17*age −0.387 <0.001 <0.001
    Inner ring 128.4 − 0.21*age −0.412 <0.001 <0.001
    Outer ring 114.3 − 0.15*age −0.351 <0.001 <0.001
ORL
    Whole 139.0 − 0.01*age 0.023 0.705 0.915
    Center 165.3 + 0.12*age 0.167 0.007 0.002
    Inner ring 152.25 + 0.04*age 0.062 0.317 0.151
    Outer ring 134.17 − 0.04*age −0.077 0.215 0.362
Layer thickness was not significantly correlated with axial length after adjusting for age (Supplementary Table S2). 
Discussion
Several studies of normal macular layer thickness have used TD-OCT measurements 33 35 ; however, the acquisition of accurate 3D macular measurement data using TD-OCT is limited by the imaging speed and axial resolution of these instruments. Using TD-OCT, mean macular layer thickness is calculated based on only six radial linear scans of 6 mm each, requiring interpolation to fill in the nonimaged areas. SD-OCT instruments allow 43× to 125× faster image acquisition and provide approximately double the axial resolution (∼3–7 μm) and a higher signal-to-noise ratio than the Stratus OCT. These features provide images on which measuring fine details of macular structures is possible, specifically the thicknesses of individual retinal layers. Loduca et al. 36 recently reported the use of Spectralis (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany), a type of SD-OCT instrument, to map the thicknesses of retinal layers on 19 horizontal B scans in 15 healthy eyes. We used a different type of SD-OCT instrument, together with 3D raster scanning, to measure retinal layer thickness in a large population of sex-matched, age-stratified groups. 
The clinical usefulness of any imaging system depends on the reproducibility of the measurements it is used to obtain. In this study, interoperator CVs ranged from 0.012 to 0.038, and ICCs ranged from 0.931 to 0.988. In a study of 43 healthy eyes using the same SD-OCT system with a multilayer segmentation algorithm, intervisit CVs ranged from 0.021 to 0.044 (Hangai M, et al. IOVS 2010;51:ARVO E-Abstract 221). These results indicate that the SD-OCT system with the multilayer segmentation algorithm permits reliable measurement of the thickness of each retinal layer. 
Mean Retinal Layer Thickness
The mean values we obtained for retinal layer thickness were similar to those obtained in other studies of healthy eyes. 36 38 In our study, the mean RNFL thickness averaged over the whole macula was 32.2 ± 3.7 μm, compared with the values reported by Loduca et al. (36 ± 7 μm) 36 and Kotera et al. (29 ± 4 μm), 37 who also used SD-OCT. Similar small differences can be found among RNFL thicknesses measured in studies that used TD-OCT. 8  
Furthermore, the thicknesses of the GCL, IPL, and INL in our study (Table 3) were comparable to measurements of GCL, IPL, and INL thicknesses averaged over all ETDRS segments, excluding the central fovea in the TD-OCT study. 8  
Using TD-OCT, Ishikawa et al. 33 found a mean of 51 ± 4 μm for OPL thickness and 94 ± 7 μm for mean outer retinal complex (ONL+IS+OS) thickness; the total thickness of these layers (145 μm) was slightly greater than what we obtained (138.5 ± 7.8 μm). We believe this can be accounted for by the differences in study populations and imaging systems. 
Standard SD-OCT images acquired along the optical axis typically do not show axons of the photoreceptor nuclei or Henle's fiber layer (HFL). Recently, Lujan et al. 39 and Otani et al. 40 were able to identify the HFL by varying where the SD-OCT beam was directed through the pupil. With this maneuver, they were able to view reflected light from the HFL when the beam was directed eccentrically, toward the side of the fovea opposite the side of beam entry. When they included the HFL in measurements of ONL thickness, these measurements increased by 52%. 39 These results demonstrate that accurate measurement of ONL thickness is challenging. Thus, in the study we report here, we did not evaluate ONL thickness alone; instead we measured the combined thickness of the OPL and ONL. 
Macular Sector Differences in Retinal Layer Thickness
We found that the GCL and INL were thinner in the temporal sector than in the nasal sector within the inner ring (1–3 mm from the center of the fovea) but not within the outer ring (3–6 mm from the foveal center). The circular or “C”-like shapes of the GCL, IPL, and INL in the parafovea were similar to the findings of a histologic study wherein the spatial distribution of ganglion cells was quantified in whole mounts of healthy human retinas. 41 Within the central fovea, ganglion cell density was the highest in a horizontally oriented ellipse 0.4 to 2.0 mm from the foveal center. The number of ganglion cells was lower in the temporal sector than in the nasal sector within 0.5 to 2 mm of the foveal center, but the difference was minimal within 2 to 3 mm of the foveal center, which may explain the thinner GCL and INL in the temporal sector than in the nasal sector within the inner ring (0.5–1.5 mm from the center of the fovea) but not within the outer ring (1.5–3 mm from the foveal center). We also found that peak INL thickness occurred in the same area as peak GCL thickness; thus, we speculate that the densities of bipolar cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and Müller cells might be high in these areas. 
Numerous studies have found that total retinal thickness is greater in the nasal quadrant than in the temporal quadrant and greater in the ETDRS inner ring than in the outer ring. 11,13 15,17,19 28 Thickness maps for each retinal layer in the present study clearly show that the RNFL is vertically but not horizontally symmetrical. This asymmetry of the RNFL probably accounts for the finding that total macular thickness in the outer ring is less symmetrical than in the inner ring. 
Differences due to Sex
Several studies have reported sex-related differences in total macular thickness and in thicknesses in some sectors. 13,15,19,20,25,28 For example, mean central foveal sector thickness was found to be significantly greater in men than in women, and mean retinal thicknesses in all quadrants of the inner ring and in the temporal quadrant of the outer ring were found to be significantly greater in men than in women. 28  
This study is the first to identify sex-related differences in the thicknesses of individual retinal layers. We found that the INL and OPL+ONL were significantly thicker in men, whereas the macular RNFL was thicker in women. In the central foveal sector, ETDRS inner ring, and temporal quadrant of the outer ring, where the RNFL is relatively thin, the sex-related difference in INL or OPL+ONL thickness may be responsible for the observed sex-related difference in total retinal thickness. 
Changes with Age
OCT measurements have demonstrated a negative correlation between age and total retinal thickness, 16,21,22,25 and one study found that in the fovea, mean thickness was not correlated with age, but in 5 of 8 extrafoveal sectors, thickness correlated negatively with age. 28 Using SD-OCT (HD-OCT), Song et al. 25 studied 198 eyes and reported that average extrafoveal retinal thicknesses decreased as mean subject age increased, although no significant correlation was found between mean central foveal sector thickness and age. 
In this study, the thicknesses of the RNFL, GCL, IPL, INL, and IS correlated negatively with age. However, the thickness of the OPL+ONL was not correlated with age, and the thickness of the OS correlated positively with age. 
Of the three primary retinal layers in the central fovea, with increasing age, the OPL+ONL did not change in thickness, the OS thickened, and the IS thinned. The varying effects of aging on the layers of the fovea indicated why previous studies found no overall statistically significant correlations between aging and foveal retinal layer thickness. 22,25,28 Similarly, our findings support previous studies showing that total retinal thickness in extrafoveal regions is negatively correlated with age. 16,21,22,25,28 Among the retinal layers we examined, only the thickness of the OS was positively correlated with age in the inner and outer ring. 
Aging has been shown to be associated with loss of neurons in the inner retina. 42 46 Histologic studies showed age-related losses of 0.3% to 0.6% of retinal neurons per year, 42,43 whereas age-related thinning of the RNFL occurs at a lower rate of ∼0.2% per year. 45 Most OCT studies report similar findings, including decreases in the mean circumpapillary or peripapillary RNFL thickness with age. 16,22,44 46 We found a linear decrease in macular RNFL and GCL thickness with age, with negative slopes of −0.05 and −0.07 μm/year (0.2% and 0.2%/year), respectively. We also found age-related thinning of other inner retinal layers (IPL and INL), suggesting that aging is associated with loss of other neurons or glial cells in the INL. 
Fewer studies have examined the effects of aging on the outer retina. In one study, 28 the mean thickness of the central fovea, which is composed primarily of outer retinal layers, was not correlated with age, whereas another study found a slight increase in thickness of the central foveal sector with increasing age. 22 In this study, the thickness of the outer retinal layers did not change in the inner ring and outer ring but was positively correlated with age in the central foveal sector. Taken together, these findings indicate that retinal thickness in the outer fovea does not decrease with age. This is supported by histologic findings. Curcio et al. 47 counted cones and rods in 27 whole-mounted retinas from donors 27 to 90 years old with macroscopically healthy fundi and reported that changes in the cone density showed no consistent relationship with age, whereas rod density decreased by 30% from the youngest to the oldest specimen. Thus, foveal thickness may not decrease because of the following reasons: foveal cones remain stable with aging; subclinical vitreous traction has positive effects on the fovea; the OS thickens because of decreased retinal pigment epithelium phagocytosis with age. 
Effect of Axial Length
We found no correlation between total retinal thickness and age-adjusted axial length for any ETDRS sector. No previous study examined this correlation by sector, and results were contradictory in studies that examined total retinal thickness over the entire macula. For example, a study that included subjects with high myopia found a correlation between total macular thickness and axial length, 18,19,25 but a study that excluded highly myopic eyes 28 and studies that included highly myopic eyes 48,49 found no significant correlation. Controversial results have also been reported for correlations between peripapillary RNFL thickness and axial length or refractive error. 45,46,50 52 Several differences in study design could have contributed to these inconsistent results, such as inclusion of eyes with high myopia and adjustment for age or correct magnification. The relationship between retinal layer thickness and axial length should be investigated further, especially for subjects with highly myopic eyes. 
Study Limitations
Although several authors have measured OS thickness as the distance between the IS/OS and the RPE, 5,36,53 OS thickness may be between the IS/OS and OS tip line. Thus, the OS thickness defined in the present study and the true OS thickness might differ. RPE and OS tip lines are difficult to identify independently in some subjects, and OS thickness might be underestimated in them. 
Another limitation of our study is that the 3D-OCT raster-scan protocol may not cover the entire ETDRS region in some eyes: the ETDRS sectors are encompassed in a 6-mm diameter circle, whereas the raster scan is a 6 × 6-mm square area. Thus, even if the central fovea and the central sector of the ETDRS layout match exactly, the corners of the outer ring may be omitted. Similar problems are encountered when obtaining measurements with the Stratus TD-OCT. 
A further limitation was that although we studied a large number of people evenly distributed by age and sex, all subjects were Japanese adults without high myopia; results could differ among other population groups or groups with high myopia. Specifically, foveal and extrafoveal thickness differences between different ethnic groups 20 and between eyes with and without high myopia 19 have been reported. Thus, studies similar to ours on the relationships between macular layer thickness and age, sex, and axial length in other ethnic groups and among those with high myopia would add clarity. 
In summary, 3D macular layer dimensions in a large healthy population were profiled using an SD-OCT instrument. Our findings indicate that the effects of sex and age on macular dimensions vary by retinal layer; these subject variables must be considered while interpreting macular layer thickness data. Evaluation of the thickness of the ONL or photoreceptor layer may be used to predict visual prognosis in various macular diseases, and these thicknesses may also be used for monitoring the progression of retinitis pigmentosa. GCL thickness may be used to diagnose early-stage glaucoma and to evaluate the efficacy of medical and surgical treatments for glaucoma. Our findings provide basic information to facilitate macular layer thickness analysis using SD-OCT instruments for assessing various retinal diseases and glaucoma. 
Supplementary Materials
Table st1, PDF - Table st1, PDF 
Movie sv01, MOV - Movie sv01, MOV 
Footnotes
 Supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research 21796179 from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and by Topcon Inc. (Tokyo, Japan).
Footnotes
 Disclosure: S. Ooto, None; M. Hangai, Topcon Inc. (C); A. Tomidokoro, None; H. Saito, None; M. Araie, Topcon Inc. (C); T. Otani, None; S. Kishi, None; K. Matsushita, None; N. Maeda, Topcon Inc. (C); M. Shirakashi, None; H. Abe, None; S. Ohkubo, None; K. Sugiyama, None; A. Iwase, None; N. Yoshimura, Topcon Inc. (C)
References
Chan A Duker JS Ishikawa H . Quantification of photoreceptor layer thickness in normal eyes using optical coherence tomography. Retina. 2006;26:655–660. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Witkin AJ Ko TH Fujimoto JG . Ultra-high resolution optical coherence tomography assessment of photoreceptors in retinitis pigmentosa and related diseases. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;142:945–952. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Matsumoto H Sato T Kishi S . Outer nuclear layer thickness at the fovea determines visual outcomes in resolved central serous chorioretinopathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;148:105–110. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ooto S Hangai M Sakamoto A . High-resolution imaging of resolved central serous chorioretinopathy using adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy. Ophthalmology. 2010;117:1800–1809. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ooto S Tsujikawa A Mori S . Thickness of photoreceptor layers in polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy and central serous chorioretinopathy. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2010;248:1077–1086. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Arichika S Hangai M Yoshimura N . Correlation between thickening of the inner and outer retina and visual acuity in patients with epiretinal membrane. Retina. 2010;30:503–508. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ooto S Hangai M Takayama K . High-resolution imaging of the photoreceptor layer in epiretinal membrane using adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:873–881. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tan O Li G Lu AT . Mapping of macular substructures with optical coherence tomography for glaucoma diagnosis. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:949–956. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tan O Chopra V Lu AT . Detection of macular ganglion cell loss in glaucoma by Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:2305–2314. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
van Dijk HW Verbraak FD Kok PH . Decreased retinal ganglion cell layer thickness in patients with type 1 diabetes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51:3660–3665. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Leung CK Cheung CY Weinreb RN . Comparison of macular thickness measurements between time domain and spectral domain optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:4893–4897. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wolf-Schnurrbusch UE Ceklic L Brinkmann CK . Macular thickness measurements in healthy eyes using six different optical coherence tomography instruments. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:3432–3437. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Huang J Liu X Wu Z . Macular thickness measurements in normal eyes with time-domain and Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography. Retina. 2009;29:980–987. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kakinoki M Sawada O Sawada T . Comparison of macular thickness between Cirrus HD-OCT and Stratus OCT. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2009;40:135–140. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sull AC Vuong LN Price LL . Comparison of spectral/Fourier domain optical coherence tomography instruments for assessment of normal macular thickness. Retina. 2010;30:235–245. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Alamouti B Funk J . Retinal thickness decreases with age: an OCT study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87:899–901. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Chan A Duker JS Ko TH . Normal macular thickness measurements in healthy eyes using Stratus optical coherence tomography. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124:193–198. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lim MC Hoh ST Foster PJ . Use of optical coherence tomography to assess variations in macular retinal thickness in myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:974–978. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lam DS Leung KS Mohamed S . Regional variations in the relationship between macular thickness measurements and myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:376–382. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kelty PJ Payne JF Trivedi RH . Macular thickness assessment in healthy eyes based on ethnicity using Stratus OCT optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:2668–2672. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Eriksson U Alm A . Macular thickness decreases with age in normal eyes: a study on the macular thickness map protocol in the Stratus OCT. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93:1448–1452. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sung KR Wollstein G Bilonick RA . Effects of age on optical coherence tomography measurements of healthy retinal nerve fiber layer, macula, and optic nerve head. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:1119–1124. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Legarreta JE Gregori G Punjabi OS . Macular thickness measurements in normal eyes using spectral domain optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2008;39:S43–S49. [PubMed]
Grover S Murthy RK Brar VS Chalam KV . Normative data for macular thickness by high-definition spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (Spectralis). Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;148:266–271. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Song WK Lee SC Lee ES . Macular thickness variations with sex, age, and axial length in healthy subjects: a spectral domain-optical coherence tomography study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51:3913–3918. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Grover S Murthy RK Brar VS Chalam KV . Comparison of retinal thickness in normal eyes using Stratus and Spectralis optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51:2644–2647. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Forte R Cennamo GL Finelli ML de Crecchio G . Comparison of time domain Stratus OCT and spectral domain SLO/OCT for assessment of macular thickness and volume. Eye (Lond). 2009;23:2071–2078. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ooto S Hangai M Sakamoto A . Three-dimensional profile of macular retinal thickness in normal Japanese eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51:465–473. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Yang Q Reisman CA Wang Z . Automated layer segmentation of macular OCT images using dual-scale gradient information. Opt Express. 2010;18:21293–21307. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Guo L Normando EM Nizari S Lara D Cordeiro MF . Tracking longitudinal retinal changes in experimental ocular hypertension using the cSLO and spectral domain-OCT. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51:6504–6513. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Anderson DR Patella VM . Interpretation of a single field. In: Anderson DR Patella VM eds. Automated Static Perimetry. 2nd ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 1999:121–190.
Bennett AG Rudnicka AR Edgar DF . Improvements on Littmann's method of determining the size of retinal features by fundus photography. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1994;232:361–367. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ishikawa H Stein DM Wollstein G . Macular segmentation with optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:2012–2017. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Christensen UC Kroyer K Thomadsen J . Normative data of outer photoreceptor layer thickness obtained by software image enhancing based on Stratus optical coherence tomography images. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92:800–805. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bagci AM Shahidi M Ansari R . Thickness profiles of retinal layers by optical coherence tomography image segmentation. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;146:679–687. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Loduca AL Zhang C Zelkha R Shahidi M . Thickness mapping of retinal layers by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;150:849–855. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kotera Y Hangai M Hirose F . Three-dimensional imaging of macular inner structures in glaucoma by using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:1412–1421. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Leung CK Chan WM Yung WH . Comparison of macular and peripapillary measurements for the detection of glaucoma: an optical coherence tomography study. Ophthalmology. 2005;112:391–400. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lujan BJ Roorda A Knighton RW Carroll J . Revealing Henle's fiber layer using spectral domain optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:1486–1492. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Otani T Yamaguchi Y Kishi S . Improved visualization of Henle fiber layer by changing the measurement beam angle on optical coherence tomography. Retina. 2011;31:497–501. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Curcio CA Allen KA . Topography of ganglion cells in human retina. J Comp Neurol. 1990;300:5–25. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kerrigan-Baumrind LA Quigley HA Pease ME . Number of ganglion cells in glaucoma eyes compared with threshold visual field tests in the same persons. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:741–748. [PubMed]
Repka MX Quigley HA . The effect of age on normal human optic nerve fiber number and diameter. Ophthalmology. 1989;96:26–32. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Parikh RS Parikh SR Sekhar GC . Normal age-related decay of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:921–926. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Budenz DL Anderson DR Varma R . Determinants of normal retinal nerve fiber layer thickness measured by Stratus OCT. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:1046–1052. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hirasawa H Tomidokoro A Araie M . Peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness determined by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography in ophthalmologically normal eyes. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128:1420–1426. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Curcio CA Millican CL Allen KA Kalina RE . Aging of the human photoreceptor mosaic: evidence for selective vulnerability of rods in central retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993;34:3278–3296. [PubMed]
Zou H Zhang X Xu X Yu S . Quantitative in vivo retinal thickness measurement in Chinese healthy subjects with retinal thickness analyzer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:341–347. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Chan CM Yu JH Chen LJ . Posterior pole retinal thickness measurements by the retinal thickness analyzer in healthy Chinese subjects. Retina. 2006;26:176–181. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Leung CK Mohamed S Leung KS . Retinal nerve fiber layer measurements in myopia: an optical coherence tomography study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:5171–5176. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nagai-Kusuhara A Nakamura M Fujioka M . Association of retinal nerve fibre layer thickness measured by confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy and optical coherence tomography with disc size and axial length. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92:186–190. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hoh ST Lim MC Seah SK . Peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness variations with myopia. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:773–777. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Matsumoto H Kishi S Otani T Sato T . Elongation of photoreceptor outer segment in central serous chorioretinopathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145:162–168. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1.
 
Delineation of retinal layers on a 3D SD-OCT image. Thickness was measured between yellow lines for the RNFL, GCL, IPL, INL, OPL+ONL, IS (distance between the external limiting membrane and the inner border of the highly reflective line representing the inner and outer segment junction line), and OS (distance between the inner border of the inner and outer segment junction line and the inner border of the RPE).
Figure 1.
 
Delineation of retinal layers on a 3D SD-OCT image. Thickness was measured between yellow lines for the RNFL, GCL, IPL, INL, OPL+ONL, IS (distance between the external limiting membrane and the inner border of the highly reflective line representing the inner and outer segment junction line), and OS (distance between the inner border of the inner and outer segment junction line and the inner border of the RPE).
Figure 2.
 
Delineation of the nine macular sectors, according to the ETDRS, within which we measured macular layer thickness. Green box: the 6 × 6-mm area for 3D raster scanning.
Figure 2.
 
Delineation of the nine macular sectors, according to the ETDRS, within which we measured macular layer thickness. Green box: the 6 × 6-mm area for 3D raster scanning.
Figure 3.
 
Mean thickness maps for each retinal layer in 256 ophthalmologically healthy subjects. The color spectrum to the right of each image shows the thickness range for the layer measured in that image. Right: nasal; left: temporal. (A) RNFL, (B) GCL, (C) IPL, (D) INL, (E) OPL+ONL, (F) IS, and (G) OS.
Figure 3.
 
Mean thickness maps for each retinal layer in 256 ophthalmologically healthy subjects. The color spectrum to the right of each image shows the thickness range for the layer measured in that image. Right: nasal; left: temporal. (A) RNFL, (B) GCL, (C) IPL, (D) INL, (E) OPL+ONL, (F) IS, and (G) OS.
Figure 4.
 
Mean thickness maps for men (left) and women (right), calculated based on all subjects (n = 130 men, n = 126 women), for (A) RNFL, (B) INL, and (C) OPL+ONL. The color spectrum to the right of each image shows the thickness range for the layer measured in that image. Right: nasal; left: temporal.
Figure 4.
 
Mean thickness maps for men (left) and women (right), calculated based on all subjects (n = 130 men, n = 126 women), for (A) RNFL, (B) INL, and (C) OPL+ONL. The color spectrum to the right of each image shows the thickness range for the layer measured in that image. Right: nasal; left: temporal.
Figure 5.
 
Mean thickness maps of 80 subjects 20 to 39 years of age (left), 83 subjects 40 to 59 years of age (middle), and 93 subjects 60 years and older (right) for (A) RNFL, (B) GCL, (C) IPL, (D) INL, (E) OPL+ONL, (F) IS, and (G) OS. The color spectrum to the right of each image shows the thickness range for the layer measured in that image. Right: nasal; left: temporal.
Figure 5.
 
Mean thickness maps of 80 subjects 20 to 39 years of age (left), 83 subjects 40 to 59 years of age (middle), and 93 subjects 60 years and older (right) for (A) RNFL, (B) GCL, (C) IPL, (D) INL, (E) OPL+ONL, (F) IS, and (G) OS. The color spectrum to the right of each image shows the thickness range for the layer measured in that image. Right: nasal; left: temporal.
Figure 6.
 
Mean thickness maps in 80 subjects 20 to 39 years of age (left), 83 subjects 40 to 59 years of age (middle), and 93 subjects 60 years of age and older (right) for the inner retinal sectors. (A) GCC, consisting of the RNFL + GCL + IPL. (B) Outer retinal layers (ORL), consisting of the OPL + IS + OS. The color spectrum to the right of each image shows the thickness range for the layer measured in that image. Right: nasal; left: temporal.
Figure 6.
 
Mean thickness maps in 80 subjects 20 to 39 years of age (left), 83 subjects 40 to 59 years of age (middle), and 93 subjects 60 years of age and older (right) for the inner retinal sectors. (A) GCC, consisting of the RNFL + GCL + IPL. (B) Outer retinal layers (ORL), consisting of the OPL + IS + OS. The color spectrum to the right of each image shows the thickness range for the layer measured in that image. Right: nasal; left: temporal.
Table 1.
 
Characteristics of 256 Subjects/Healthy Eyes
Table 1.
 
Characteristics of 256 Subjects/Healthy Eyes
Age Group (y) No. Men/Women (ratio) Mean Refractive Error (diopters) Mean Axial Length (mm) Mean IOP (mm Hg)
20–29 40 19/21 (0.9) −1.5 ± 1.6 24.1 ± 0.9 13.8 ± 2.0
30–39 40 21/19 (1.0) −1.3 ± 1.1 24.0 ± 0.9 14.3 ± 2.5
40–49 36 20/16 (1.3) −1.1 ± 1.1 23.9 ± 0.8 14.5 ± 2.3
50–59 47 21/26 (0.8) −0.7 ± 1.5 23.7 ± 1.0 13.9 ± 2.6
60–69 57 29/28 (1.0) 0.3 ± 1.1 23.4 ± 0.8 14.7 ± 2.3
70+ 36 20/16 (1.3) 0.7 ± 1.6 23.2 ± 0.9 13.9 ± 2.4
Total 256 130/126 (1.1) −0.5 ± 1.6 23.7 ± 0.9 14.2 ± 2.4
Table 2.
 
Reproducibility of Measurements of Normal Macular Layer Thickness Obtained Using 3D-OCT with a Multilayer Segmentation Algorithm
Table 2.
 
Reproducibility of Measurements of Normal Macular Layer Thickness Obtained Using 3D-OCT with a Multilayer Segmentation Algorithm
Macular Area CV ICC
Center Inner Ring Outer Ring Whole Macula Center Inner Ring Outer Ring Whole Macula
RNFL N/A 0.030 0.035 0.031 N/A 0.949 0.961 0.959
GCL N/A 0.009 0.020 0.012 N/A 0.973 0.980 0.988
IPL N/A 0.014 0.024 0.016 N/A 0.973 0.987 0.987
INL N/A 0.011 0.017 0.012 N/A 0.981 0.984 0.987
OPL+ONL 0.023 0.013 0.013 0.015 0.992 0.984 0.978 0.982
IS 0.025 0.027 0.035 0.029 0.986 0.866 0.939 0.931
OS 0.060 0.044 0.074 0.038 0.972 0.945 0.943 0.945
Table 3.
 
Mean Retinal Layer Thickness Measurements in Macular EDTRS Sectors
Table 3.
 
Mean Retinal Layer Thickness Measurements in Macular EDTRS Sectors
Retinal Layer Center Inner Ring Outer Ring Whole Macula
Upper Lower Nasal Temporal Upper Lower Nasal Temporal
RNFL N/A 25.0 ± 3.3 25.8 ± 3.0 21.9 ± 3.4 17.7 ± 2.7 37.9 ± 5.4 39.1 ± 6.0 48.5 ± 7.6 19.4 ± 2.5 32.2 ± 3.7
GCL N/A 59.3 ± 6.9 58.7 ± 6.5 59.9 ± 7.4 54.6 ± 7.1 36.6 ± 3.1 34.6 ± 2.8 40.7 ± 4.0 39.1 ± 4.0 42.2 ± 3.0
IPL N/A 36.9 ± 3.4 37.4 ± 3.5 35.8 ± 3.5 35.4 ± 3.6 30.9 ± 3.1 29.0 ± 2.7 32.2 ± 3.3 34.7 ± 3.2 32.6 ± 2.3
INL N/A 39.3 ± 3.9 39.7 ± 3.9 41.1 ± 4.1 37.1 ± 4.1 31.4 ± 2.6 30.6 ± 2.5 33.5 ± 2.9 32.6 ± 2.9 33.4 ± 2.1
OPL+ONL 103.9 ± 10.6 91.8 ± 8.5 88.3 ± 8.3 94.1 ± 8.8 93.1 ± 9.1 74.0 ± 7.3 66.5 ± 6.3 74.3 ± 7.4 72.2 ± 7.6 77.6 ± 5.4
IS 26.9 ± 2.3 23.1 ± 3.3 22.8 ± 2.5 23.7 ± 2.6 24.1 ± 3.2 23.0 ± 3.5 22.1 ± 2.5 22.1 ± 2.8 23.8 ± 4.4 23.1 ± 2.5
OS 39.8 ± 8.2 39.1 ± 7.2 38.5 ± 6.9 37.7 ± 7.8 37.7 ± 7.5 38.2 ± 5.3 37.1 ± 4.2 36.5 ± 5.3 37.9 ± 5.5 37.8 ± 4.8
Table 4.
 
Sex Differences in Mean Macular Layer Thicknesses
Table 4.
 
Sex Differences in Mean Macular Layer Thicknesses
Macular Layer Total (n = 256) Men (n = 130) Women (n = 126) P *
RNFL
    Whole 32.2 ± 3.7 31.6 ± 3.7 32.8 ± 3.7 0.006†
    Inner ring 22.7 ± 2.3 22.7 ± 2.4 22.7 ± 2.3 0.875
    Outer ring 36.3 ± 4.5 35.4 ± 4.4 37.2 ± 4.4 0.001†
GCL
    Whole 42.2 ± 3.0 42.2 ± 3.2 42.2 ± 2.8 0.994
    Inner ring 58.3 ± 5.6 58.4 ± 6.1 58.2 ± 5.1 0.785
    Outer ring 37.9 ± 2.5 37.9 ± 2.5 37.9 ± 2.4 0.989
IPL
    Whole 32.6 ± 2.3 32.8 ± 2.4 32.5 ± 2.2 0.349
    Inner ring 36.5 ± 2.4 36.8 ± 2.6 36.2 ± 2.3 0.032†
    Outer ring 31.8 ± 2.4 31.9 ± 2.5 31.7 ± 2.4 0.615
INL
    Whole 33.4 ± 2.1 33.8 ± 2.0 33.0 ± 2.1 0.002†
    Inner ring 39.4 ± 3.0 40.2 ± 3.0 38.7 ± 2.7 <0.001†
    Outer ring 32.2 ± 2.0 32.4 ± 1.9 31.9 ± 2.1 0.034†
OPL+ONL
    Whole 77.6 ± 5.4 78.6 ± 5.4 76.4 ± 5.2 0.001†
    Center 103.9 ± 10.6 106.0 ± 9.0 102.4 ± 7.5 0.001†
    Inner ring 92.2 ± 6.3 93.6 ± 6.6 90.6 ± 5.7 <0.001†
    Outer ring 72.1 ± 5.4 73.0 ± 5.3 70.9 ± 5.3 0.002†
IS
    Whole 23.1 ± 2.5 22.9 ± 1.9 23.2 ± 3.0 0.368
    Center 26.9 ± 2.3 27.0 ± 1.6 27.0 ± 1.7 0.933
    Inner ring 23.5 ± 2.3 23.3 ± 1.6 23.7 ± 2.9 0.233
    Outer ring 22.8 ± 2.8 22.7 ± 2.2 22.9 ± 3.2 0.441
OS
    Whole 37.8 ± 4.8 38.0 ± 4.6 37.6 ± 5.1 0.548
    Center 39.8 ± 8.2 39.6 ± 7.4 40.2 ± 8.2 0.536
    Inner ring 38.4 ± 6.7 38.3 ± 6.5 38.5 ± 7.0 0.814
    Outer ring 37.5 ± 4.4 37.8 ± 4.1 37.2 ± 4.7 0.301
Table 5.
 
Correlations of Age with Thickness of Macular Layers before (P *) and after (P †) Adjusting for Axial Length
Table 5.
 
Correlations of Age with Thickness of Macular Layers before (P *) and after (P †) Adjusting for Axial Length
Macular Layer Regression R P * P † (adjusted for axial length)
RNFL
    Whole 34.7 − 0.05*age −0.223 <0.001 0.001
    Inner ring 24.5 − 0.04*age −0.253 <0.001 <0.001
    Outer ring 39.0 − 0.05*age −0.196 0.001 0.002
GCL
    Whole 45.6 − 0.07*age −0.383 <0.001 <0.001
    Inner ring 65.4 − 0.14*age −0.414 <0.001 <0.001
    Outer ring 40.3 − 0.05*age −0.327 <0.001 <0.001
IPL
    Whole 35.4 − 0.05*age −0.403 <0.001 <0.001
    Inner ring 38.4 − 0.04*age −0.261 <0.001 <0.001
    Outer ring 34.9 − 0.06*age −0.422 <0.001 <0.001
INL
    Whole 35.1 − 0.03*age −0.261 <0.001 <0.001
    Inner ring 40.2 − 0.01*age −0.087 0.160 0.060
    Outer ring 34.2 − 0.04*age −0.335 <0.001 <0.001
OPL+ONL
    Whole 78.2 − 0.01*age −0.041 0.509 0.485
    Center 100.2 + 0.08*age 0.159 0.010 0.005
    Inner ring 91.3 − 0.02*age −0.045 0.470 0.308
    Outer ring 73.5 − 0.03*age −0.096 0.123 0.128
IS
    Whole 25.4 − 0.05*age −0.306 <0.001 <0.001
    Center 29.3 − 0.05*age −0.445 <0.001 <0.001
    Inner ring 26.1 − 0.05*age −0.370 <0.001 <0.001
    Outer ring 25.1 − 0.04*age −0.270 <0.001 <0.001
OS
    Whole 35.3 + 0.05*age 0.167 0.007 0.002
    Center 35.8 + 0.08*age 0.176 0.004 0.002
    Inner ring 34.8 + 0.07*age 0.173 0.005 0.002
    Outer ring 35.5 + 0.04*age 0.152 0.013 0.004
Table 6.
 
Correlation between Age and Inner or Outer Retinal Layer Thickness before (P *) and after (P †) Adjusting for Axial Length
Table 6.
 
Correlation between Age and Inner or Outer Retinal Layer Thickness before (P *) and after (P †) Adjusting for Axial Length
Macular Layer Regression R P * P † (adjusted for axial length)
GCC
    Whole 115.8 − 0.17*age −0.387 <0.001 <0.001
    Inner ring 128.4 − 0.21*age −0.412 <0.001 <0.001
    Outer ring 114.3 − 0.15*age −0.351 <0.001 <0.001
ORL
    Whole 139.0 − 0.01*age 0.023 0.705 0.915
    Center 165.3 + 0.12*age 0.167 0.007 0.002
    Inner ring 152.25 + 0.04*age 0.062 0.317 0.151
    Outer ring 134.17 − 0.04*age −0.077 0.215 0.362
Table st1, PDF
Movie sv01, MOV
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×