April 2014
Volume 55, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2014
Non-adaptive Optics Cone Imaging: A comparative study with the Imagine Eyes RTX1
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Joe Zhong
    National Institute of Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • Yvonne Hsu-Lin Luo
    National Institute of Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
    Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
  • Dawn A Sim
    National Institute of Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
    Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
  • Lyndon Da Cruz
    National Institute of Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
    Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
  • Roger Anderson
    National Institute of Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
    Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
  • Pearse Andrew Keane
    National Institute of Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
    Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
  • Catherine A Egan
    National Institute of Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
    Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
  • Adnan Tufail
    National Institute of Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
    Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Joe Zhong, None; Yvonne Luo, None; Dawn Sim, Allergan (R); Lyndon Da Cruz, None; Roger Anderson, None; Pearse Keane, Allergan (R); Catherine Egan, None; Adnan Tufail, Alcon (C), Allergan (C), Bayer (C), Heidelberg Engineering (C), Novartis (I), Oculogics (C), Pfizer (C), Roche (C), Thrombogenetics (C)
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2014, Vol.55, 1596. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Joe Zhong, Yvonne Hsu-Lin Luo, Dawn A Sim, Lyndon Da Cruz, Roger Anderson, Pearse Andrew Keane, Catherine A Egan, Adnan Tufail; Non-adaptive Optics Cone Imaging: A comparative study with the Imagine Eyes RTX1. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014;55(13):1596. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: To compare a novel, non-adaptive optics based cone imaging modality using the modified spectral domain optical tomography (Heidelberg® Retinal Angiogram) system, with the current commercialized Imagine Eyes RTX1™ adaptive optics system.

Methods: Sixteen undilated eyes of 8 emmetropic (less than 1 diopter of refractive error) normal subjects were imaged on both the modified HRA and the RTX1 systems by a single operator. Subjects with any media opacity, retinal pathology or previous ocular surgery were excluded. Images from five fixation points (foveal center, and at 2.4 degrees superior, inferior, nasal and temporal) were obtained for each eye. Image quality from both systems were compared by 2 independent graders for the clarity of cone identification. The comfort during imaging (determined by the subjects) for the 2 systems were also compared.

Results: Cone photoreceptors were clearly visible in 7 out of the 8 subjects with RTX1 and in all 8 subjects with HRA. The subject that was unable to image with the RTX1 had a pupil size of 2mm. When comparing the quality of the two devices the proportion of "better image quality" for RTX1 versus HRA versus no difference is 53.9%, 18.4% and 27.6% respectively for Grader 1, and 63.2%, 11.8% and 25.0% respectively for Grader 2 (Kappa 0.492, 95% CI 0.299 to 0.684). Six (out of 8) subjects found imaging with RTX1 easier due to larger fixation target and lesser scanning laser intensity.

Conclusions: Imaging of cone photoreceptors was possible using both RTX1 and modified HRA. The latter is capable of capturing cone images reliably in normal subjects using non-adaptive optics mechanism. Under optimal condition with clear media and pupil size of greater than 3mm, the RTX1 currently produces better image quality. The qualities of the HRA images are less affected by the pupil size.

Keywords: 552 imaging methods (CT, FA, ICG, MRI, OCT, RTA, SLO, ultrasound)  
×
×

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.

×