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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |