May 2006
Volume 47, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2006
Heidelberg Retina Tomograph (HRT) II vs. HRT 3: What Is the Difference?
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • R.A. Bilonick
    UPMC Eye Center, Ophthalmology and Visual Science Research Center, Eye and Ear Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
  • Z. Burgansky–Eliash
    UPMC Eye Center, Ophthalmology and Visual Science Research Center, Eye and Ear Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
  • G. Wollstein
    UPMC Eye Center, Ophthalmology and Visual Science Research Center, Eye and Ear Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
  • H. Ishikawa
    UPMC Eye Center, Ophthalmology and Visual Science Research Center, Eye and Ear Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
  • L. Kagemann
    UPMC Eye Center, Ophthalmology and Visual Science Research Center, Eye and Ear Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
  • R.J. Noecker
    UPMC Eye Center, Ophthalmology and Visual Science Research Center, Eye and Ear Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
  • J.S. Schuman
    UPMC Eye Center, Ophthalmology and Visual Science Research Center, Eye and Ear Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  R.A. Bilonick, None; Z. Burgansky–Eliash, None; G. Wollstein, None; H. Ishikawa, None; L. Kagemann, None; R.J. Noecker, None; J.S. Schuman, Carl Zeiss Meditec, C; Carl Zeiss Meditec, P.
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH Grants RO1–EY013178–6 and P30–EY008098, Research to Prevent Blindness and The Eye and Ear Foundation (Pittsburgh)
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2006, Vol.47, 3633. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      R.A. Bilonick, Z. Burgansky–Eliash, G. Wollstein, H. Ishikawa, L. Kagemann, R.J. Noecker, J.S. Schuman; Heidelberg Retina Tomograph (HRT) II vs. HRT 3: What Is the Difference? . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):3633.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : The newly released Heidelberg Retina Tomograph (HRT 3) software uses a larger normative database than the HRT II software for classification of measured parameters. The software also provides stereometric disc measurements without the need of subjectively defining the disc margin. A neural network technique (Glaucoma probability score, GPS) is applied to these measurements for classification. In this study we analyzed a single dataset of HRT images, comparing the results of 3 software applications (1) HRT II, (2) HRT 3 with the disc margin imported from the HRT II analysis, and (3) the HRT 3 with GPS automated disc margin identification.

Methods: : 527 eyes of 284 consecutive subjects (glaucoma patients, glaucoma suspects, and healthy subjects) evaluated in a glaucoma clinic were recruited for the study. The global stereometric parameters from HRT II and HRT 3 were compared using a repeated measures model. The cup area was compared to GPS cup size using a linear mixed–effects model. The agreement (Kappa) between HRT II and 3 Moorfields regression analysis (MRA) and HRT 3 GPS classification methods was calculated.

Results: : Global stereometric parameters were statistically smaller in HRT 3 than the corresponding HRT II measurements. GPS cup size was lower than both the HRT II and HRT 3 cup area by an average 0.27 and 0.24 mm2 respectively (both p<0.0001). The kappa for agreement between classifications (within normal limits (WNL), borderline (BL) and outside normal limits (ONL)) of MRA by HRT 3 and HRT II was 0.58, between GPS and MRA by HRT II was 0.42, and between GPS and HRT 3 MRA was 0.44. Twenty–nine percent (29%) of participants labeled as WNL by HRT II MRA were classified as BL by HRT3 MRA, and 37% of subjects classified as BL by HRT II MRA were classified as ONL by HRT3 MRA.

Conclusions: : HRT 3 provided smaller stereometric disc measurements than HRT II. GPS cup area was smaller compared to the measurement in HRT II or HRT 3 analysis which requires a user–defined disc contour line. A moderate degree of agreement was found between the MRA of HRT 3 and HRT II, with lower agreement between the classification of GPS and MRA of either HRT 3 or HRT II.

Keywords: imaging methods (CT, FA, ICG, MRI, OCT, RTA, SLO, ultrasound) • imaging/image analysis: clinical 
×
×

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.

×