Purchase this article with an account.
Jason Hsu, Nadim Rayess, Ehsan Rahimy; Comparison of Radial Versus Raster Spectral-domain Optical Coherence Tomography Scan Patterns at Detecting Macular Pathology. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014;55(13):269.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To compare the effectiveness of different spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) scan acquisition patterns (6-line radial vs. 25-line raster) in detecting macular pathology.
Retrospective, observational, case series of patients diagnosed with macular disorders from January 2010 through September 2013. A total of 365 eyes that underwent Heidelberg SD-OCT image acquisition using both 6-line radial and 25-line raster scans were evaluated by two independent graders. 50 eyes were evaluated for each of the following disorders: neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO), diabetic macular edema (DME), central serous retinopathy (CSR) and vitreomacular traction (VMT). 65 eyes were evaluated for macular hole (MH). For each eye, serial SD-OCT scans were examined for the presence of intraretinal fluid (IRF), subretinal fluid (SRF), MH, or VMT (focal vs. broad).
For patients with neovascular AMD (133 scans), 7 SD-OCT scans confirmed SRF/IRF with the 25-line raster that were not identified by the 6-line radial acquisition (5.3%; 95% CI 2.1-10.5%, p=0.023). For individuals with BRVO (126 scans) and CRVO (123 scans), 4 (3.2%; 95% CI 0.87-7.9%, p=0.13) and 3 scans (2.4%; 95% CI 0.5-7%, p=0.248), respectively, confirmed SRF/IRF on 25-line raster that the 6-line radial failed to detect. For DME patients (140 scans), 4 scans confirmed SRF/IRF on the 25-line raster that were not identified by the 6-line radial scans (2.9%; 95% CI 0.78-7.2%, p=0.134). For those with CSR (91 scans), 1 scan confirmed SRF/IRF on 25-line raster that was not observed with the 6-line radial scan (1.1%; 95% CI 0.03-6%, p=0.320). Conversely, for MH (82 scans), 7 scans (8.5%; 95% CI 3.5-17%, p=0.023) confirmed the presence of a hole on the 6-line radial scan in which the 25-line raster failed to identify. Additionally, for VMT (80 scans), 5 scans (6.3%; 95% CI 2.1-14%, p=0.074) missed focal traction (<1500 microns) by the 25-line raster that were successfully identified using the 6-line radial pattern.
The 6-line radial scan is comparable to the 25-line raster scan at detecting intra- and subretinal fluid in numerous macular diseases with the exception of neovascular AMD, and may be superior to the 25-line raster acquisition pattern at detecting early macular hole formation.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only