May 2008
Volume 49, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2008
Comparison of Retinal Thickness Measurements Using Automated Fast Macular Thickness Map versus 6 Radial Line Scans and Manual Measurement in Patients With Exudative AMD
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • D. R. Williams
    Digital OCT Reading Center, Cole Eye Institute, Parma Heights, Ohio
  • S. Sharma
    Digital OCT Reading Center,
    Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland, Ohio
  • M. Taban
    Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland, Ohio
  • P. K. Kaiser
    Digital OCT Reading Center,
    Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland, Ohio
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  D.R. Williams, None; S. Sharma, Reichert, R; M. Taban, None; P.K. Kaiser, Heidelberg, Carl Zeiss Meditec, C; Heidelberg, Carl Zeiss Meditec, R.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2008, Vol.49, 905. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      D. R. Williams, S. Sharma, M. Taban, P. K. Kaiser; Comparison of Retinal Thickness Measurements Using Automated Fast Macular Thickness Map versus 6 Radial Line Scans and Manual Measurement in Patients With Exudative AMD. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2008;49(13):905. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : To compare automated retinal thickness values generated by the Stratus fast macular thickness maps (FMTM) and customized, high resolution 6-radial line scans versus manual retinal thickness measurements using the Stratus optical coherence tomography (OCT) scanner in patients with choroidal neovascularization (CNV) due to age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

Methods: : Patients with wet AMD were imaged using the FMTM and 6-radial line scans on the Stratus OCT III (Carl Zeiss Meditec). Each scan was evaluated for errors in retinal segmentation at the fovea defined as the central 1-mm of the scan. Central retinal thickness measurements were determined manually from both the FMTM and radial line scans. Automated retinal thickness measurements of the foveal center point thickness, central subfield, total macular volume, signal strength, and software determination of low analysis confidence were also recorded for each type of scan. The presence/absence of epiretinal phenomenon, CNV, cystoid spaces, pigment epithelial detachment, and subretinal fluid was noted.

Results: : A total of 72 eyes (72 patients) were evaluated. 70% of FMTM scans and 88% of radial line scans were found to have >4 (out of 6) correct retinal boundaries at the fovea. 38% and 60% of automated foveal center point thickness on FMTM and radial line scans, respectively, lay within +/- 25 microns of the manual central retinal thickness. Comparing FMTM and radial line scans, 66% and 84% of automated foveal center point thickness and central subfield, respectively, were found to lay within +/- 25 microns of each other.

Keywords: imaging methods (CT, FA, ICG, MRI, OCT, RTA, SLO, ultrasound) • imaging/image analysis: clinical • retina 
×
×

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.

×