September 2016
Volume 57, Issue 12
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2016
Comparison of retinal ganglion cell - inner plexiform layer thickness measured by Cirrus and Spectralis optical coherence tomography in eyes with diabetic macular edema.
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Julia Hafner
    Ophthalmology and Optometry, Medical University Vienna, Austria, Vienna, Austria
  • Sonja Gudrun Prager
    Ophthalmology and Optometry, Medical University Vienna, Austria, Vienna, Austria
  • Jan Lammer
    Ophthalmology and Optometry, Medical University Vienna, Austria, Vienna, Austria
  • Katharina Kriechbaum
    Ophthalmology and Optometry, Medical University Vienna, Austria, Vienna, Austria
  • Christoph Scholda
    Ophthalmology and Optometry, Medical University Vienna, Austria, Vienna, Austria
  • Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth
    Ophthalmology and Optometry, Medical University Vienna, Austria, Vienna, Austria
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Julia Hafner, None; Sonja Prager, None; Jan Lammer, None; Katharina Kriechbaum, None; Christoph Scholda, None; Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science September 2016, Vol.57, 4236. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Julia Hafner, Sonja Gudrun Prager, Jan Lammer, Katharina Kriechbaum, Christoph Scholda, Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth; Comparison of retinal ganglion cell - inner plexiform layer thickness measured by Cirrus and Spectralis optical coherence tomography in eyes with diabetic macular edema.. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):4236.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Reduced thickness of the macular ganglion cell - inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) is indicative of early diabetic neurodegeneration. We therefore wanted to determine the comparability of GCIPL thickness measurements of 2 spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) devices in patients with diabetic macular edema.

Methods : Retrospective analysis of OCT scans in patients treated for diabetic macular edema. Macular cube scans with a signal strength ≥ 6 by Cirrus HD-OCT (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA, USA) were compared to matched volume scans acquired by Spectralis OCT (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) of the same examination date. Since Cirrus detects GCIPL thickness in an elliptical annulus centered on the fovea, ganglion cell and inner plexiform layer thicknesses of the inner ETDRS subfields were combined on Spectralis to obtain the area most comparable to this ellipsis. Automated segmentation was performed by Cirrus 7.0 and Heidelberg Eye Explorer 1.9.10.0 software versions. Due to Cirrus software limitations, manual correction of GCIPL segmentation was only possible for Spectralis scans and was applied when necessary.

Results : Paired OCT scans of 20 eyes of 20 patients (mean age±SD 64±8 years, 6 female) were included in this comparative analysis. Average GCIPL thicknesses were 62±20 μm, 91±9 μm and 90±10 μm on Cirrus, automated and corrected Spectralis scans, respectively. GCIPL was significantly thicker on Spectralis (corrected or uncorrected) compared to Cirrus (p<0.001, respectively). Interdevice correlation (Cirrus versus automated Spectralis) resulted in a Spearman ρ=0.72. Bland-Altman plots showed a systematic difference between Spectralis and Cirrus measurements with a larger difference at thinner and smaller difference at thicker GCIPL values.

Conclusions : GCIPL thickness obtained by different SD-OCT devices varied significantly and should therefore not be used interchangeably. Lacking interdevice agreement may be due to differences in the segmentation algorithms, the size of analysed areas and segmentation errors. As SD-OCT is an indispensable tool for identifying retinal GC loss and thinning of the inner retina as signs of early diabetic neurodegeneration, clinicians should be aware of this discrepancy when monitoring patients imaged by different OCT instruments.

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.

×