Cargando…
Reproducibility and differences in area of foveal avascular zone measured by three different optical coherence tomographic angiography instruments
This study was performed to compare the area of the foveal avascular zone (FAZ-area) obtained by three optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) instruments. This was a cross-sectional, non-interventional study of twenty-seven healthy right eyes. The superficial and deep FAZ-area was measured...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5575252/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28851930 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09255-5 |
_version_ | 1783260001953906688 |
---|---|
author | Shiihara, Hideki Sakamoto, Taiji Yamashita, Takehiro Kakiuchi, Naoko Otsuka, Hiroki Terasaki, Hiroto Sonoda, Shozo |
author_facet | Shiihara, Hideki Sakamoto, Taiji Yamashita, Takehiro Kakiuchi, Naoko Otsuka, Hiroki Terasaki, Hiroto Sonoda, Shozo |
author_sort | Shiihara, Hideki |
collection | PubMed |
description | This study was performed to compare the area of the foveal avascular zone (FAZ-area) obtained by three optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) instruments. This was a cross-sectional, non-interventional study of twenty-seven healthy right eyes. The superficial and deep FAZ-area was measured manually with three OCTA instruments: Triton (Topcon), RS3000 (Nidek), and CIRRUS (Zeiss). The intra-rater, inter-rater, and inter-instrument correlation coefficients (CC) were assessed. The intra-rater and inter-rater CC were significantly high for the superficial and deep FAZ-areas (P < 0.001). The inter-instrument CC (95% confidence interval) for the superficial FAZ-area was 0.920 (0.803–0.965) for Triton vs RS3000, 0.899 (0.575–0.965) for RS3000 vs CIRRUS, and was 0.963 (0.913–0.983) for CIRRUS vs Triton (P < 0.001). For the deep FAZ-area, the inter-instrument CC was 0.813 (0.633–0.910) for Triton vs RS3000, 0.694 (0.369–0.857) for RS3000 vs CIRRUS, and 0.679 (0.153–0.872) for CIRRUS vs Triton (P < 0.001). The superficial FAZ-area (mm(2)) was 0.264 ± 0.071 with Triton, 0.278 ± 0.072 with RS3000 and 0.257 ± 0.066 with CIRRUS. For deep FAZ-area, it was 0.617 ± 0.175 with Triton, 0.646 ± 0.178 with RS3000 and 0.719 ± 0.175 with CIRRUS. The FAZ-area from these instruments was clinically interchangeable. However, the absolute values of FAZ-area are significantly different among them. These differences must be considered in comparing the FAZ-areas from different OCTA instruments. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5575252 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-55752522017-09-01 Reproducibility and differences in area of foveal avascular zone measured by three different optical coherence tomographic angiography instruments Shiihara, Hideki Sakamoto, Taiji Yamashita, Takehiro Kakiuchi, Naoko Otsuka, Hiroki Terasaki, Hiroto Sonoda, Shozo Sci Rep Article This study was performed to compare the area of the foveal avascular zone (FAZ-area) obtained by three optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) instruments. This was a cross-sectional, non-interventional study of twenty-seven healthy right eyes. The superficial and deep FAZ-area was measured manually with three OCTA instruments: Triton (Topcon), RS3000 (Nidek), and CIRRUS (Zeiss). The intra-rater, inter-rater, and inter-instrument correlation coefficients (CC) were assessed. The intra-rater and inter-rater CC were significantly high for the superficial and deep FAZ-areas (P < 0.001). The inter-instrument CC (95% confidence interval) for the superficial FAZ-area was 0.920 (0.803–0.965) for Triton vs RS3000, 0.899 (0.575–0.965) for RS3000 vs CIRRUS, and was 0.963 (0.913–0.983) for CIRRUS vs Triton (P < 0.001). For the deep FAZ-area, the inter-instrument CC was 0.813 (0.633–0.910) for Triton vs RS3000, 0.694 (0.369–0.857) for RS3000 vs CIRRUS, and 0.679 (0.153–0.872) for CIRRUS vs Triton (P < 0.001). The superficial FAZ-area (mm(2)) was 0.264 ± 0.071 with Triton, 0.278 ± 0.072 with RS3000 and 0.257 ± 0.066 with CIRRUS. For deep FAZ-area, it was 0.617 ± 0.175 with Triton, 0.646 ± 0.178 with RS3000 and 0.719 ± 0.175 with CIRRUS. The FAZ-area from these instruments was clinically interchangeable. However, the absolute values of FAZ-area are significantly different among them. These differences must be considered in comparing the FAZ-areas from different OCTA instruments. Nature Publishing Group UK 2017-08-29 /pmc/articles/PMC5575252/ /pubmed/28851930 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09255-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Article Shiihara, Hideki Sakamoto, Taiji Yamashita, Takehiro Kakiuchi, Naoko Otsuka, Hiroki Terasaki, Hiroto Sonoda, Shozo Reproducibility and differences in area of foveal avascular zone measured by three different optical coherence tomographic angiography instruments |
title | Reproducibility and differences in area of foveal avascular zone measured by three different optical coherence tomographic angiography instruments |
title_full | Reproducibility and differences in area of foveal avascular zone measured by three different optical coherence tomographic angiography instruments |
title_fullStr | Reproducibility and differences in area of foveal avascular zone measured by three different optical coherence tomographic angiography instruments |
title_full_unstemmed | Reproducibility and differences in area of foveal avascular zone measured by three different optical coherence tomographic angiography instruments |
title_short | Reproducibility and differences in area of foveal avascular zone measured by three different optical coherence tomographic angiography instruments |
title_sort | reproducibility and differences in area of foveal avascular zone measured by three different optical coherence tomographic angiography instruments |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5575252/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28851930 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09255-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT shiiharahideki reproducibilityanddifferencesinareaoffovealavascularzonemeasuredbythreedifferentopticalcoherencetomographicangiographyinstruments AT sakamototaiji reproducibilityanddifferencesinareaoffovealavascularzonemeasuredbythreedifferentopticalcoherencetomographicangiographyinstruments AT yamashitatakehiro reproducibilityanddifferencesinareaoffovealavascularzonemeasuredbythreedifferentopticalcoherencetomographicangiographyinstruments AT kakiuchinaoko reproducibilityanddifferencesinareaoffovealavascularzonemeasuredbythreedifferentopticalcoherencetomographicangiographyinstruments AT otsukahiroki reproducibilityanddifferencesinareaoffovealavascularzonemeasuredbythreedifferentopticalcoherencetomographicangiographyinstruments AT terasakihiroto reproducibilityanddifferencesinareaoffovealavascularzonemeasuredbythreedifferentopticalcoherencetomographicangiographyinstruments AT sonodashozo reproducibilityanddifferencesinareaoffovealavascularzonemeasuredbythreedifferentopticalcoherencetomographicangiographyinstruments |