Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022
Reproducibility of Neuroretinal Rim Measurements Obtained from High-Density Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography Volume Scans.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kim Janice, Men Clara J, Ratanawongphaibul Kitiya, Papadogeorgou Georgia, Tsikata Edem, Ben-David Geulah S, Antar Hussein, Poon Linda Yi-Chieh, Freeman Madeline, Park Elli A, Guzman Aparicio Maria A, de Boer Johannes F, Chen Teresa C
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the reproducibility of two-dimensional (2D) peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness and three-dimensional (3D) neuroretinal rim measurements using spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SDOCT) in normal and glaucoma subjects.
METHODS: One eye per subject for 27 normal and 40 glaucoma subjects underwent repeat SDOCT RNFL thickness scans and optic nerve volume scans on the same day. From the volume scan, custom software calculated five neuroretinal rim parameters: 3D minimum distance band (MDB) thickness, 3D MDB area, 3D rim volume, 2D rim area, and 2D rim thickness. Within-subject variance (Sw), coefficient of variation (CV), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were analyzed.
RESULTS: MDB thickness and RNFL thickness have similar reproducibility among normal and glaucoma subjects (eg, global MDB thickness CVs of 2.4% and 3.6%, and global RNFL thickness CVs of 1.3% and 2.2%; P > 0.05 for both comparisons). Reproducibility of MDB thickness was lower in glaucoma patients for the superior and inferior quadrants compared to normal subjects (CVs of 9.6% versus 3.4% and 6.9% versus 2.7%; P < 0.05, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between both groups for RNFL thickness in the four quadrants. For both patient groups and for all regions, MDB thickness had the lowest CVs among all five neuroretinal rim parameters (eg, global MDB thickness CVs of 2.4% and 3.6% versus 3.0% and 18.9% for the other four neuroretinal rim parameters).
CONCLUSION: Global MDB and global RNFL thickness are similarly reproducible among normal and glaucoma subjects, though MDB thickness for the superior and inferior quadrants is less reproducible among glaucoma subjects.
METHODS: One eye per subject for 27 normal and 40 glaucoma subjects underwent repeat SDOCT RNFL thickness scans and optic nerve volume scans on the same day. From the volume scan, custom software calculated five neuroretinal rim parameters: 3D minimum distance band (MDB) thickness, 3D MDB area, 3D rim volume, 2D rim area, and 2D rim thickness. Within-subject variance (Sw), coefficient of variation (CV), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were analyzed.
RESULTS: MDB thickness and RNFL thickness have similar reproducibility among normal and glaucoma subjects (eg, global MDB thickness CVs of 2.4% and 3.6%, and global RNFL thickness CVs of 1.3% and 2.2%; P > 0.05 for both comparisons). Reproducibility of MDB thickness was lower in glaucoma patients for the superior and inferior quadrants compared to normal subjects (CVs of 9.6% versus 3.4% and 6.9% versus 2.7%; P < 0.05, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between both groups for RNFL thickness in the four quadrants. For both patient groups and for all regions, MDB thickness had the lowest CVs among all five neuroretinal rim parameters (eg, global MDB thickness CVs of 2.4% and 3.6% versus 3.0% and 18.9% for the other four neuroretinal rim parameters).
CONCLUSION: Global MDB and global RNFL thickness are similarly reproducible among normal and glaucoma subjects, though MDB thickness for the superior and inferior quadrants is less reproducible among glaucoma subjects.