Recent advances in noninvasive imaging technologies have opened opportunities to investigate the ocular vasculature in greater detail. Several studies have attempted to quantitatively compare the vascular density at the macular region in healthy, aged, and diseased eyes. Although the measurements are highly repeatable and reproducible within studies, large discrepancies in vessel density exist between studies.
3–6 The morphology and density of retinal microvasculature have previously been studied using various techniques, including injection of India ink, latex, benzidine peroxidase staining, infusion of silver nitrate, periodic acid-Schiff technique, casting, ADPase enzyme histochemistry,
7 and fluorescein angiography.
8–12 More recently, optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) and adaptive optics have been used for quantifying macular microvasculature clinically as a noninvasive technique.
3,4,6,13–21 Various algorithms have been used to obtain vascular density data.
3,4,6,22 A study to compare regional differences in vascular density around the macular region also has been conducted.
6 However, comparison of data from these studies found wide-ranging variation from a minimum of 27.6% to more than 90.0% in the macular region.
3,4,6 Factors contributing to the variation in vascular density are many fold and include vessel-shadowing artifacts,
19 technical limitations in lateral resolution at 6 μm,
4 and differences in the segmentation applied for inclusion of retinal layers and thickness
23 in obtaining density measurements. Several studies have since addressed the confounding issue of segmentation using layering information derived from several confocal studies on the human retina,
24,25 as well as the study by Snodderly and Weinhaus
26 on monkey macular capillary layers. Later studies
4,20 that have applied histological knowledge to segmentation procedures have provided lower measurements for vascular density. Large variation in recent data casts an obvious doubt on the accuracy of vascular density measurements. As stated by Shahlaee et al.,
3 there is currently no “gold standard” against which they can validate their quantification data.