May 2008
Volume 49, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2008
A Comparison of Retinal Nerve Fiber (RNFL) Thickness Obtained With Frequency and Time Domain Standard Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT)
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • A. S. Raza
    Columbia University, New York, New York
    Psychology,
  • K. Y. Kay
    Columbia University, New York, New York
    Psychology,
  • S. F. Sandler
    Einhorn Clinical Research Center, NY Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, New York
  • D. Xin
    Columbia University, New York, New York
    Psychology,
  • J. M. Liebmann
    Einhorn Clinical Research Center, NY Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, New York
  • R. Ritch
    Einhorn Clinical Research Center, NY Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York, New York
  • D. C. Hood
    Columbia University, New York, New York
    Psychology,
    Ophthalmology,
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  A.S. Raza, None; K.Y. Kay, None; S.F. Sandler, None; D. Xin, None; J.M. Liebmann, Topcon, F; R. Ritch, None; D.C. Hood, Topcon, F.
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH Grant RO1-EY02115, NIH Grant R01-EY-09076, Joan Schechtman Research Fund of the New York Glaucoma Research Institute, New York, NY
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2008, Vol.49, 4630. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      A. S. Raza, K. Y. Kay, S. F. Sandler, D. Xin, J. M. Liebmann, R. Ritch, D. C. Hood; A Comparison of Retinal Nerve Fiber (RNFL) Thickness Obtained With Frequency and Time Domain Standard Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT). Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2008;49(13):4630. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : To compare the RNFL thickness obtained with frequency domain (fd) and time domain (td) optical coherence tomography (OCT).

Methods: : 43 eyes of 27 patients with glaucoma (G), 34 eyes of 25 glaucoma suspects (S), and 25 eyes of 16 controls (C) were tested with tdOCT (Fast RNFL scan with signal strength >= 5, OCT3, Zeiss Meditech) and fdOCT (Disc 3D-Scan with Qfactor >= 40, 3DOCT-1000, Topcon). Glaucoma patients had abnormal discs and 24-2 Humphrey visual fields (abnormal GHT or PSD); the mean MD was -5.9±6.8 dB. Suspects had abnormal discs but normal visual fields. For the tdOCT, the RNFL thickness profiles were exported. For the fdOCT, the RNFL thickness was determined around a circle 3.4mm in dia., centered on the optic disc, which is comparable to that used in the tdOCT scan. For both fdOCT and tdOCT, the overall average RNFL thickness was computed, as well as the average thickness for 6 optic disc sectors.[1] Pearson correlations and Bland-Altman (B-A) plots were generated.

Results: : The agreement between the fdOCT and tdOCT was good. The overall average thicknesses were similar for the fdOCT [C: 96.6; S: 90.2; G: 74.8] and tdOCT [C: 98.6; S: 92.5; G: 71.9], and the correlation between these measures high (r=0.91). For the 6 sectors, the correlations range from 0.76 to 0.91. The B-A plots showed no evidence of a systematic error between tdOCT and fdOCT measures and little or no evidence of a proportional error. That is, the average offset and the slopes of the B-A plots were close to zero, although there was a trend for the patients with more extensive RNFL loss to show slightly larger fdOCT values, probably due to an underestimate of blood vessel thickness by the tdOCT. [2,3] An analysis of the most discrepant points (greater than 1.75 SD on B-A plots) suggested that the algorithms determining RNFL thickness play a role. For example, the algorithm with more spatial averaging (tdOCT), can yield slightly larger RNFL thicknesses in controls, but smaller RNFL thicknesses in patients with more extensive RNFL loss.

Conclusions: : RNFL thickness obtained with fdOCT can be compared to data previously obtained with tdOCT. The RNFL thickness values were similar and individual values showed a good correlation. However, differences in algorithms can produce differences in RNFL thickness measurements in particular individuals. 1. Garway-Heath et al, Ophthal (2000); 2. Hood & Kardon, PRER (2007); 3. Hood et al, J. Glau. In press.

Keywords: nerve fiber layer • 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.

×