September 2016
Volume 57, Issue 12
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2016
Bruch’s membrane opening can be assessed using both Spectralis Radial and Cube Scan Patterns
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Sami W. Kabbara
    Department of Ophthalmology, Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, University of California, San Diego , San Diego, California, United States
    School of Medicine, University of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, United States
  • Linda M Zangwill
    Department of Ophthalmology, Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, University of California, San Diego , San Diego, California, United States
  • Rusdeep S Mundae
    Department of Ophthalmology, Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, University of California, San Diego , San Diego, California, United States
    School of Medicine, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
  • Christopher Bowd
    Department of Ophthalmology, Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, University of California, San Diego , San Diego, California, United States
  • Felipe A Medeiros
    Department of Ophthalmology, Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, University of California, San Diego , San Diego, California, United States
  • Robert N Weinreb
    Department of Ophthalmology, Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, University of California, San Diego , San Diego, California, United States
  • Akram Belghith
    Department of Ophthalmology, Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, University of California, San Diego , San Diego, California, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Sami Kabbara, None; Linda Zangwill, Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc (R), Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc. (F), Heidelberg Engineering GmbH (F), Optovue Inc. (F), Optovue Inc. (R), Topcon Medical Systems Inc. Quark (F); Rusdeep Mundae, None; Christopher Bowd, None; Felipe Medeiros, Alcon (C), Allergan (F), Allergan (C), Ametek (F), Ametek (C), Bausch+Lomb (F), Carl-Zeiss Meditec (F), Carl-Zeiss Meditec (C), Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc (R), Heidelberg Engineering (F), Heidelberg Engineering (C), Sensimed (F), Topcon (F); Robert Weinreb, Alcon (C), Allergan (C), Bausch+Lomb (C), Carl Zeiss Meditec (C), Carl Zeiss Meditec (F), Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc (R), Genentech (F), Heidelberg Engineering (F), Optovue (F), Topcon (C), Topcon (F); Akram Belghith, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  AG26757, EY0222589, NIH Grants P30EY022589, EY11008, EY019869, EY021818, and participant retention incentive grants in the form of glaucoma medication at no cost from Alcon Laboratories Inc, Allergan, Pfizer Inc, and Santen Inc. Unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness, New York, New York
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science September 2016, Vol.57, 842. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Sami W. Kabbara, Linda M Zangwill, Rusdeep S Mundae, Christopher Bowd, Felipe A Medeiros, Robert N Weinreb, Akram Belghith; Bruch’s membrane opening can be assessed using both Spectralis Radial and Cube Scan Patterns. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):842.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Minimum rim width (BMO-MRW) is usually based on assessment of the BMO from radial ONH scans. In this study we compare the radial and cube ONH scan patterns in identifying the BMO, estimating the BMO-MRW and its rate of change, and differentiating between healthy and glaucoma eyes.

Methods : Sixty healthy eyes and 189 glaucoma eyes from the Diagnostic Innovation in Glaucoma study (DIGS) were included. BMO location and BMO-MRW were automatically delineated using the San Diego Automated Layer Segmentation Algorithm (SALSA) on Spectralis B-scans of ONH cube and radial scans. The BMO location, BMO-MRW and BMO-MRW rates of change derived from the two scan settings were compared using the mixed effect model both on a global and sectoral level. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the two scan patterns.

Results : The average differences in BMO location between cube and radial scans in healthy and glaucoma eyes were 2.2 (SD=2.0) and 2.14 voxels (SD=1.33), respectively. There was a significant difference between the baseline mean cube and radial scan BMO-MRW for global measurement of healthy (301.9 ±57.8 µm and 334.7 ±61.8 µm, respectively p<0.003) and glaucoma group (181.2 ±63.0 µm and 210.2 ±67.2 µm, respectively P<0.0001) (Table). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) for differentiating between healthy and glaucoma eyes was 0.91 for RNFL thickness and 0.90 for both the radial and cube scan based BMO-MRW, after adjusting for disc size, age and axial length. Cube and radial scan showed no statistical difference in the BMO-MRW rate of change (mean follow-up years) among both healthy (cube: -1.47 µm /yr and radial: -1.53 µm /yr, respectively P=0.48) (1.6 years) and glaucoma eyes (cube: -2.37 µm /yr and radial: -2.28 µm /yr, respectively P=0.45) (2.6 years). Both cube and radial scan based BMO-MRW average rates of change were significantly faster in glaucoma eyes compared to healthy eyes.

Conclusions : Although the cube scan based BMO-MRW was significantly smaller than the radial scan based BMO-MRW, we found no significant difference between cube and radial scans for detecting glaucoma, identifying BMO location, or measuring BMO-MRW rate of change. These results suggest that the ONH cube scan as well as the radial scan can be used for monitoring glaucoma.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.

 

 

×
×

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.

×