May 2004
Volume 45, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2004
Comparison of retinal thickness and macular volume using three imaging techniques
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • J.H. Naheedy
    College of Medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
  • D.–U. Bartsch
    Shiley Eye Center, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA
  • W.R. Freeman
    Shiley Eye Center, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  J.H. Naheedy, None; D. Bartsch, Heidelberg Engineering R; W.R. Freeman, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  EY13304 (DUB), EY07366 (WRF)
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2004, Vol.45, 2407. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      J.H. Naheedy, D.–U. Bartsch, W.R. Freeman; Comparison of retinal thickness and macular volume using three imaging techniques . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):2407.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Abstract: : Purpose: To compare the macular edema modules of the Heidelberg Retinal Tomograph (HRT), the Heidelberg Retinal Tomograph II (HRT II), and the Optical Coherence Tomograph 3 (OCT3) in their abilities to assess and map retinal thickness and macular volume in normal subjects. Methods: Twenty eyes of 20 normal, healthy volunteers were included in the study sample in this cross–sectional, comparative instrument validation study (mean age=34, SD=10.0, range=19–57). All subjects were without retinopathy or prior history of intraocular surgery or laser. Several fovea–centered scans were obtained with each machine and the best quality image was selected for analysis. On the HRT, volume was calculated by defining a reference plane at the presumed posterior retinal location and determining the volume above this reference plane. On the HRT II, the Macular Edema Module (version was used to determine the edema index. On the OCT3, the built–in software was used to calculate retinal volume. The following were then compared: a) OCT3 vs. HRT macular volume calculations, b) Macular Map (MM) vs. Fast Macular Map (FMM) protocols of the OCT3, and c) retinal thickness and Edema Index in the fovea using the Macular Edema Module of HRT II vs. the MM protocol of the OCT3. Results: a) The macular volume measured by OCT (mean=2.476, SD=.130) was significantly greater (p<.01) than that measured by HRT (mean=1.558, SD=.304); minimal correlation (r=.14) was found between the two samples. We also found the intrinsic variation of the HRT measurements to be significantly greater than that of the OCT measurements (coeff. of variation=0.19 vs. 0.05, p=0.006). b) There was no significant difference in macular volume as computed by the MM and FMM protocols of the OCT (p=.90); values showed high correlation (r=.96). c) Foveal thickness, as calculated by OCT3 (mean=192.9, SD=19.2) and HRT II (mean=203.2, SD=30.5), was not significantly different (p=.22); the HRT II Edema Index was poorly correlated with foveal volume by OCT 3 (r=.08). Conclusions: The Fast Macular Map (FMM) and the Macular Map (MM) protocols of the OCT offer similar volume measurements. The FMM provides the option of faster image acquisition time for patients unable to maintain fixation. We observed poor correlation between OCT volume measurements and confocal scanning laser tomography measurements in normal volunteers. Since the exact measure of retinal volume is unknown, we are unable to determine which instrument is more accurate. The difference might be explained by differences in lateral sampling points and axial resolution.

Keywords: imaging methods (CT, FA, ICG, MRI, OCT, RTA, SLO, ultrasound) • macula/fovea • 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.