Cargando…

Comparison of Choroidal Thickness Measurements Using Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography in Six Different Settings and With Customized Automated Segmentation Software

PURPOSE: We investigate which spectral domain-optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) setting is superior when measuring subfoveal choroidal thickness (CT) and compared results to an automated segmentation software. METHODS: Thirty patients underwent enhanced depth imaging (EDI)-OCT. B-scans were extr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Giannakaki-Zimmermann, Helena, Huf, Wolfgang, Schaal, Karen B., Schürch, Kaspar, Dysli, Chantal, Dysli, Muriel, Zenger, Anita, Ceklic, Lala, Ciller, Carlos, Apostolopoulos, Stephanos, De Zanet, Sandro, Sznitman, Raphael, Ebneter, Andreas, Zinkernagel, Martin S., Wolf, Sebastian, Munk, Marion R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6503890/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31110908
http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/tvst.8.3.5
_version_ 1783416484488282112
author Giannakaki-Zimmermann, Helena
Huf, Wolfgang
Schaal, Karen B.
Schürch, Kaspar
Dysli, Chantal
Dysli, Muriel
Zenger, Anita
Ceklic, Lala
Ciller, Carlos
Apostolopoulos, Stephanos
De Zanet, Sandro
Sznitman, Raphael
Ebneter, Andreas
Zinkernagel, Martin S.
Wolf, Sebastian
Munk, Marion R.
author_facet Giannakaki-Zimmermann, Helena
Huf, Wolfgang
Schaal, Karen B.
Schürch, Kaspar
Dysli, Chantal
Dysli, Muriel
Zenger, Anita
Ceklic, Lala
Ciller, Carlos
Apostolopoulos, Stephanos
De Zanet, Sandro
Sznitman, Raphael
Ebneter, Andreas
Zinkernagel, Martin S.
Wolf, Sebastian
Munk, Marion R.
author_sort Giannakaki-Zimmermann, Helena
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: We investigate which spectral domain-optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) setting is superior when measuring subfoveal choroidal thickness (CT) and compared results to an automated segmentation software. METHODS: Thirty patients underwent enhanced depth imaging (EDI)-OCT. B-scans were extracted in six different settings (W+N = white background/normal contrast 9; W+H = white background/maximum contrast 16; B+N = black background/normal contrast 12; B+H = black background/maximum contrast 16; C+N = Color-encoded image on black background at predefined contrast of 9, and C+H = Color-encoded image on black background at high/maximal contrast of 16), resulting in 180 images. Subfoveal CT was manually measured by nine graders and by automated segmentation software. Intraclass correlation (ICC) was assessed. RESULTS: ICC was higher in normal than in high contrast images, and better for achromatic black than for white background images. Achromatic images were better than color images. Highest ICC was achieved in B+N (ICC = 0.64), followed by B+H (ICC = 0.54), W+N, and W+H (ICC = 0.5 each). Weakest ICC was obtained with Spectral-color (ICC = 0.47). Mean manual CT versus mean computer estimated CT showed a correlation of r = 0.6 (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Black background with white image at normal contrast (B+N) seems the best setting to manually assess subfoveal CT. Automated assessment of CT seems to be a reliable tool for CT assessment. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: To define optimized OCT analysis settings to improve the evaluation of in vivo imaging.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6503890
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65038902019-05-20 Comparison of Choroidal Thickness Measurements Using Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography in Six Different Settings and With Customized Automated Segmentation Software Giannakaki-Zimmermann, Helena Huf, Wolfgang Schaal, Karen B. Schürch, Kaspar Dysli, Chantal Dysli, Muriel Zenger, Anita Ceklic, Lala Ciller, Carlos Apostolopoulos, Stephanos De Zanet, Sandro Sznitman, Raphael Ebneter, Andreas Zinkernagel, Martin S. Wolf, Sebastian Munk, Marion R. Transl Vis Sci Technol Articles PURPOSE: We investigate which spectral domain-optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) setting is superior when measuring subfoveal choroidal thickness (CT) and compared results to an automated segmentation software. METHODS: Thirty patients underwent enhanced depth imaging (EDI)-OCT. B-scans were extracted in six different settings (W+N = white background/normal contrast 9; W+H = white background/maximum contrast 16; B+N = black background/normal contrast 12; B+H = black background/maximum contrast 16; C+N = Color-encoded image on black background at predefined contrast of 9, and C+H = Color-encoded image on black background at high/maximal contrast of 16), resulting in 180 images. Subfoveal CT was manually measured by nine graders and by automated segmentation software. Intraclass correlation (ICC) was assessed. RESULTS: ICC was higher in normal than in high contrast images, and better for achromatic black than for white background images. Achromatic images were better than color images. Highest ICC was achieved in B+N (ICC = 0.64), followed by B+H (ICC = 0.54), W+N, and W+H (ICC = 0.5 each). Weakest ICC was obtained with Spectral-color (ICC = 0.47). Mean manual CT versus mean computer estimated CT showed a correlation of r = 0.6 (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Black background with white image at normal contrast (B+N) seems the best setting to manually assess subfoveal CT. Automated assessment of CT seems to be a reliable tool for CT assessment. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: To define optimized OCT analysis settings to improve the evaluation of in vivo imaging. The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2019-05-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6503890/ /pubmed/31110908 http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/tvst.8.3.5 Text en Copyright 2019 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
spellingShingle Articles
Giannakaki-Zimmermann, Helena
Huf, Wolfgang
Schaal, Karen B.
Schürch, Kaspar
Dysli, Chantal
Dysli, Muriel
Zenger, Anita
Ceklic, Lala
Ciller, Carlos
Apostolopoulos, Stephanos
De Zanet, Sandro
Sznitman, Raphael
Ebneter, Andreas
Zinkernagel, Martin S.
Wolf, Sebastian
Munk, Marion R.
Comparison of Choroidal Thickness Measurements Using Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography in Six Different Settings and With Customized Automated Segmentation Software
title Comparison of Choroidal Thickness Measurements Using Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography in Six Different Settings and With Customized Automated Segmentation Software
title_full Comparison of Choroidal Thickness Measurements Using Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography in Six Different Settings and With Customized Automated Segmentation Software
title_fullStr Comparison of Choroidal Thickness Measurements Using Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography in Six Different Settings and With Customized Automated Segmentation Software
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Choroidal Thickness Measurements Using Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography in Six Different Settings and With Customized Automated Segmentation Software
title_short Comparison of Choroidal Thickness Measurements Using Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography in Six Different Settings and With Customized Automated Segmentation Software
title_sort comparison of choroidal thickness measurements using spectral domain optical coherence tomography in six different settings and with customized automated segmentation software
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6503890/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31110908
http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/tvst.8.3.5
work_keys_str_mv AT giannakakizimmermannhelena comparisonofchoroidalthicknessmeasurementsusingspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyinsixdifferentsettingsandwithcustomizedautomatedsegmentationsoftware
AT hufwolfgang comparisonofchoroidalthicknessmeasurementsusingspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyinsixdifferentsettingsandwithcustomizedautomatedsegmentationsoftware
AT schaalkarenb comparisonofchoroidalthicknessmeasurementsusingspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyinsixdifferentsettingsandwithcustomizedautomatedsegmentationsoftware
AT schurchkaspar comparisonofchoroidalthicknessmeasurementsusingspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyinsixdifferentsettingsandwithcustomizedautomatedsegmentationsoftware
AT dyslichantal comparisonofchoroidalthicknessmeasurementsusingspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyinsixdifferentsettingsandwithcustomizedautomatedsegmentationsoftware
AT dyslimuriel comparisonofchoroidalthicknessmeasurementsusingspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyinsixdifferentsettingsandwithcustomizedautomatedsegmentationsoftware
AT zengeranita comparisonofchoroidalthicknessmeasurementsusingspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyinsixdifferentsettingsandwithcustomizedautomatedsegmentationsoftware
AT cekliclala comparisonofchoroidalthicknessmeasurementsusingspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyinsixdifferentsettingsandwithcustomizedautomatedsegmentationsoftware
AT cillercarlos comparisonofchoroidalthicknessmeasurementsusingspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyinsixdifferentsettingsandwithcustomizedautomatedsegmentationsoftware
AT apostolopoulosstephanos comparisonofchoroidalthicknessmeasurementsusingspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyinsixdifferentsettingsandwithcustomizedautomatedsegmentationsoftware
AT dezanetsandro comparisonofchoroidalthicknessmeasurementsusingspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyinsixdifferentsettingsandwithcustomizedautomatedsegmentationsoftware
AT sznitmanraphael comparisonofchoroidalthicknessmeasurementsusingspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyinsixdifferentsettingsandwithcustomizedautomatedsegmentationsoftware
AT ebneterandreas comparisonofchoroidalthicknessmeasurementsusingspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyinsixdifferentsettingsandwithcustomizedautomatedsegmentationsoftware
AT zinkernagelmartins comparisonofchoroidalthicknessmeasurementsusingspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyinsixdifferentsettingsandwithcustomizedautomatedsegmentationsoftware
AT wolfsebastian comparisonofchoroidalthicknessmeasurementsusingspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyinsixdifferentsettingsandwithcustomizedautomatedsegmentationsoftware
AT munkmarionr comparisonofchoroidalthicknessmeasurementsusingspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyinsixdifferentsettingsandwithcustomizedautomatedsegmentationsoftware
AT comparisonofchoroidalthicknessmeasurementsusingspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyinsixdifferentsettingsandwithcustomizedautomatedsegmentationsoftware