May 2008
Volume 49, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2008
Utility of Macular Optical Coherence Tomography in a Resident Clinic
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • B. M. Kim
    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
  • J. I. Lim
    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  B.M. Kim, None; J.I. Lim, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  NEI Core Grant for Vision (EYOI1792)
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2008, Vol.49, 3226. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      B. M. Kim, J. I. Lim; Utility of Macular Optical Coherence Tomography in a Resident Clinic. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2008;49(13):3226. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : To evaluate the utility of macular optical coherence tomography (OCT) ordered by ophthalmology residents.

Methods: : Macular OCTs ordered by ophthalmology residents from December 2006 to November 2007 and corresponding patient medical records were retrospectively reviewed. Data compiled from patient records included the pre-OCT clinical diagnosis, OCT interpretation by one retina attending, and post-graduate year of the examining resident. Regression analysis was used to compare correlations between: 1) pre-OCT clinical diagnosis and OCT diagnosis and 2) post-graduate resident year and frequency of correct diagnosis based upon OCT results.

Results: : Macular OCTs were performed on 161 eyes of 103 patients. Pre-OCT diagnoses included diabetic macular edema (DME, 58 eyes, 36.0%), pseudophakic post-operative cystoid macular edema (CME , 32 eyes, 19.9%), epiretinal membrane (14 eyes, 8.7%), uveitic CME (13 eyes, 8.1%), suspected macular edema as cause of visual loss (13 eyes, 8.1%), venous occlusion with macular edema (10 eyes, 6.2%), macular hole (7 eyes, 4.3%), age-related macular degeneration (AMD, 6 eyes, 3.7%), and other (8 eyes, 5.0%). OCT confirmed the pre-OCT clinical diagnosis in 91 of 161 (56.5%) patients. Agreement between OCT and clinical diagnosis was high for uveitic CME (100%), venous occlusion with macular edema (90.0%), and macular hole (71.4%). Agreement between OCT and clinical diagnosis was low for pseudophakic CME (40.6%) and suspected macular edema as cause of visual loss (15.4%). The overall positive agreement between clinical diagnosis and OCT diagnosis did not vary significantly by resident year (r2=0.216): 55.3% for first-year residents (n=38), 58.6% for second-year residents (n=29), and 56.4% for third-year residents (n=94).

Conclusions: : In a resident clinic, macular OCT confirmed the pre-OCT clinical diagnoses most often in cases of macular edema and macular hole. The OCT was useful in ruling out macular edema as the cause of visual loss in 60% of pseudophakic patients with decreased vision and in 83% of patients with vision loss of unknown etiology. Overall, in nearly 50% of cases, OCT diagnosis contradicted the pre-OCT clinical diagnosis (p<.05), often leading to a change in patient management.

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

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.

×