April 2011
Volume 52, Issue 14
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2011
Reproducibility and Correlation Between Stratus and Spectralis OCT Estimates of Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness in Patients with Ocular Hypertension or Open-Angle Glaucoma
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Evan A. Olson
    Ophthalmology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
  • Ria D. Desai
    Ophthalmology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
  • Allison Ramsey
    Ophthalmology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
  • Elizabeth Y. Wong
    Ophthalmology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
  • Angelo P. Tanna
    Ophthalmology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Evan A. Olson, None; Ria D. Desai, None; Allison Ramsey, None; Elizabeth Y. Wong, None; Angelo P. Tanna, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2011, Vol.52, 3677. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Evan A. Olson, Ria D. Desai, Allison Ramsey, Elizabeth Y. Wong, Angelo P. Tanna; Reproducibility and Correlation Between Stratus and Spectralis OCT Estimates of Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness in Patients with Ocular Hypertension or Open-Angle Glaucoma. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011;52(14):3677.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : To assess the reproducibility of retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness reported by Spectralis and Stratus OCT in patients with ocular hypertension (OHT) or open-angle glaucoma (OAG), and to attempt to create a conversion formula between the two instruments.

Methods: : 26 eyes of 26 subjects with OHT or OAG but no other ocular pathology participated in this study. Each patient underwent three Spectralis and three Stratus scans by the same operator during a single visit. One eye was randomly selected from each patient for the data analysis. Reproducibility was evaluated with intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs). Pearson correlation coefficients (R) were used to assess the degree of agreement between instruments. Spectralis values were plotted against Stratus values and a linear regression line was created for each OCT quadrant in an attempt to create a conversion formula.

Results: : ICCs ranged from 0.95 (nasal and temporal quadrants) to 0.97 (inferior quadrant) for Stratus and ranged from 0.96 (nasal quadrant) to 0.99 (superior and inferior quadrants) for Spectralis. In every quadrant, the Spectralis ICC value was significantly higher than the Stratus ICC value (P < .05). The correlation coefficients between Stratus and Spectralis measurements ranged from R=0.65 (nasal quadrant) to R=0.92 (inferior quadrant). Correlation coefficients for the superior and temporal quadrants were 0.82 and 0.85, respectively. The nasal quadrant had a significantly lower correlation coefficient than all other quadrants (P < .05). When average RNFL thickness values were compared between the two instruments, they were within 5 υm less than 35% of the time with a range in discrepancies from -29 to +17 υm and a nonsignificant trend toward lower values reported by Spectralis (83.6 ± 14.9 υm) compared to Stratus (84.8 ± 18.3 υm). When Stratus estimated a nasal RNFL thickness of less than 50 υm, Spectralis estimated significantly lower values; conversely, when Stratus estimated a nasal RNFL thickness of greater than 80 υm, Spectralis estimated significantly higher values (P < .05).

Conclusions: : In patients with OHT or OAG, RNFL measurements by Spectralis are more reproducible than those generated by Stratus which favors use of the former for the monitoring of changes in RNFL thickness. Correlations are strong between the two instruments but the measurements are not interchangeable as differences exceed 5 υm more often than not. No meaningful conversion formula could be derived.

Keywords: imaging methods (CT, FA, ICG, MRI, OCT, RTA, SLO, ultrasound) • imaging/image analysis: clinical • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: systems/equipment/techniques 
×
×

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.

×