Cargando…

A comparison of optic disc area measured by confocal scanning laser tomography versus Bruch’s membrane opening area measured using optical coherence tomography

BACKGROUND: Precise optic disc size measurements based on anatomically exact disc margins are fundamental for a correct assessment of glaucoma suspects. Computerized imaging techniques, such as confocal-scanning-laser-tomography (CSLT), which applies operator defined boundaries and optical-coherence...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cazana, Ioana Maria, Böhringer, Daniel, Reinhard, Thomas, Evers, Charlotte, Engesser, Diana, Anton, Alexandra, Lübke, Jan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7802149/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33430821
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-020-01799-x
_version_ 1783635712620363776
author Cazana, Ioana Maria
Böhringer, Daniel
Reinhard, Thomas
Evers, Charlotte
Engesser, Diana
Anton, Alexandra
Lübke, Jan
author_facet Cazana, Ioana Maria
Böhringer, Daniel
Reinhard, Thomas
Evers, Charlotte
Engesser, Diana
Anton, Alexandra
Lübke, Jan
author_sort Cazana, Ioana Maria
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Precise optic disc size measurements based on anatomically exact disc margins are fundamental for a correct assessment of glaucoma suspects. Computerized imaging techniques, such as confocal-scanning-laser-tomography (CSLT), which applies operator defined boundaries and optical-coherence-tomography (OCT), which incorporates an alternative detectable landmark (Bruch’s-membrane-opening (BMO)), have simplified the planimetry of the optic disc and BMO-area, respectively. This study’s objectives are to compare both modalities for area and to define a threshold for macro-BMO using BMO-OCT. METHODS: Retrospectively, patients that simultaneously received CSLT and BMO-OCT scans were included. Their images were correlated and agreement was determined using Bland-Altman-analysis. The diagnostic power of a macro-BMO threshold using OCT was derived after creating a receiver-operating-characteristics-curve using the well-established analogous CSLT threshold (2.43 mm(2)). RESULTS: Our study included 373 eyes with a median optic disc area by CSLT/ BMO-area by OCT of 2.56 mm(2) and 2.19 mm(2) respectively. The Bland-Altman-analysis revealed a systematic deviation with a diverging tendency with increasing area, which enabled the creation of the following mathematical relation: disc-area (CSLT)*0.73 + 0.3 = BMO-area (OCT). BMO-area of 2.19 mm(2) showed the best diagnostic power for identifying macro-BMOs using OCT (sensitivity: 75%, specificity: 86%). CONCLUSIONS: Area measurements (CSLT optic disc area vs. BMO-area by OCT) showed a systematic deviation with a divergent tendency with increasing size. Our mathematical equation offers an estimated comparison of these anatomically diverse entities. Considering BMO-OCT´ anatomical accuracy, the 2.19 mm(2) threshold may improve discernment between glaucoma suspects and norm variants.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7802149
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78021492021-01-12 A comparison of optic disc area measured by confocal scanning laser tomography versus Bruch’s membrane opening area measured using optical coherence tomography Cazana, Ioana Maria Böhringer, Daniel Reinhard, Thomas Evers, Charlotte Engesser, Diana Anton, Alexandra Lübke, Jan BMC Ophthalmol Research Article BACKGROUND: Precise optic disc size measurements based on anatomically exact disc margins are fundamental for a correct assessment of glaucoma suspects. Computerized imaging techniques, such as confocal-scanning-laser-tomography (CSLT), which applies operator defined boundaries and optical-coherence-tomography (OCT), which incorporates an alternative detectable landmark (Bruch’s-membrane-opening (BMO)), have simplified the planimetry of the optic disc and BMO-area, respectively. This study’s objectives are to compare both modalities for area and to define a threshold for macro-BMO using BMO-OCT. METHODS: Retrospectively, patients that simultaneously received CSLT and BMO-OCT scans were included. Their images were correlated and agreement was determined using Bland-Altman-analysis. The diagnostic power of a macro-BMO threshold using OCT was derived after creating a receiver-operating-characteristics-curve using the well-established analogous CSLT threshold (2.43 mm(2)). RESULTS: Our study included 373 eyes with a median optic disc area by CSLT/ BMO-area by OCT of 2.56 mm(2) and 2.19 mm(2) respectively. The Bland-Altman-analysis revealed a systematic deviation with a diverging tendency with increasing area, which enabled the creation of the following mathematical relation: disc-area (CSLT)*0.73 + 0.3 = BMO-area (OCT). BMO-area of 2.19 mm(2) showed the best diagnostic power for identifying macro-BMOs using OCT (sensitivity: 75%, specificity: 86%). CONCLUSIONS: Area measurements (CSLT optic disc area vs. BMO-area by OCT) showed a systematic deviation with a divergent tendency with increasing size. Our mathematical equation offers an estimated comparison of these anatomically diverse entities. Considering BMO-OCT´ anatomical accuracy, the 2.19 mm(2) threshold may improve discernment between glaucoma suspects and norm variants. BioMed Central 2021-01-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7802149/ /pubmed/33430821 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-020-01799-x Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis 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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence 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 licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Cazana, Ioana Maria
Böhringer, Daniel
Reinhard, Thomas
Evers, Charlotte
Engesser, Diana
Anton, Alexandra
Lübke, Jan
A comparison of optic disc area measured by confocal scanning laser tomography versus Bruch’s membrane opening area measured using optical coherence tomography
title A comparison of optic disc area measured by confocal scanning laser tomography versus Bruch’s membrane opening area measured using optical coherence tomography
title_full A comparison of optic disc area measured by confocal scanning laser tomography versus Bruch’s membrane opening area measured using optical coherence tomography
title_fullStr A comparison of optic disc area measured by confocal scanning laser tomography versus Bruch’s membrane opening area measured using optical coherence tomography
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of optic disc area measured by confocal scanning laser tomography versus Bruch’s membrane opening area measured using optical coherence tomography
title_short A comparison of optic disc area measured by confocal scanning laser tomography versus Bruch’s membrane opening area measured using optical coherence tomography
title_sort comparison of optic disc area measured by confocal scanning laser tomography versus bruch’s membrane opening area measured using optical coherence tomography
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7802149/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33430821
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-020-01799-x
work_keys_str_mv AT cazanaioanamaria acomparisonofopticdiscareameasuredbyconfocalscanninglasertomographyversusbruchsmembraneopeningareameasuredusingopticalcoherencetomography
AT bohringerdaniel acomparisonofopticdiscareameasuredbyconfocalscanninglasertomographyversusbruchsmembraneopeningareameasuredusingopticalcoherencetomography
AT reinhardthomas acomparisonofopticdiscareameasuredbyconfocalscanninglasertomographyversusbruchsmembraneopeningareameasuredusingopticalcoherencetomography
AT everscharlotte acomparisonofopticdiscareameasuredbyconfocalscanninglasertomographyversusbruchsmembraneopeningareameasuredusingopticalcoherencetomography
AT engesserdiana acomparisonofopticdiscareameasuredbyconfocalscanninglasertomographyversusbruchsmembraneopeningareameasuredusingopticalcoherencetomography
AT antonalexandra acomparisonofopticdiscareameasuredbyconfocalscanninglasertomographyversusbruchsmembraneopeningareameasuredusingopticalcoherencetomography
AT lubkejan acomparisonofopticdiscareameasuredbyconfocalscanninglasertomographyversusbruchsmembraneopeningareameasuredusingopticalcoherencetomography
AT cazanaioanamaria comparisonofopticdiscareameasuredbyconfocalscanninglasertomographyversusbruchsmembraneopeningareameasuredusingopticalcoherencetomography
AT bohringerdaniel comparisonofopticdiscareameasuredbyconfocalscanninglasertomographyversusbruchsmembraneopeningareameasuredusingopticalcoherencetomography
AT reinhardthomas comparisonofopticdiscareameasuredbyconfocalscanninglasertomographyversusbruchsmembraneopeningareameasuredusingopticalcoherencetomography
AT everscharlotte comparisonofopticdiscareameasuredbyconfocalscanninglasertomographyversusbruchsmembraneopeningareameasuredusingopticalcoherencetomography
AT engesserdiana comparisonofopticdiscareameasuredbyconfocalscanninglasertomographyversusbruchsmembraneopeningareameasuredusingopticalcoherencetomography
AT antonalexandra comparisonofopticdiscareameasuredbyconfocalscanninglasertomographyversusbruchsmembraneopeningareameasuredusingopticalcoherencetomography
AT lubkejan comparisonofopticdiscareameasuredbyconfocalscanninglasertomographyversusbruchsmembraneopeningareameasuredusingopticalcoherencetomography