The objective of the research was to assess the reproducibility of retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) and macular thickness using spectral domain optical coherence tomography and to establish whether the same investigator can get the same or similar results when performing the scan thrice in an hour, without reference to the previous scan and the repeat function.
Materials and Methods. In this prospective observational study, 200 subjects who fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria were scanned 3 times according to predefined guidelines at 0, 30 and 60 minutes on the same day, by the same investigator, using spectral domain optical coherence tomography for measurements of RNFL and macular thickness; observations were statistically analyzed and correlated.
Results. In RNFL thickness, the temporal sector showed the worst reproducibility as compared to other sectors. RNFL was the greatest in the superior quadrant and the thinnest in the temporal quadrant. For macular thickness, the temporal sector (mid zone) showed the worst reproducibility, while in the outer zone, the inferior sector showed the worst reproducibility; macular thickness was the thinnest at the central zone (innermost 1-mm ring), the thickest within the inner 3-mm ring and diminished peripherally.
Conclusions. RNFL and macular thickness measurements using spectral domain optical coherence tomography by the same observer at 0, 30 and 60 minutes were very reproducible, except for the sectors specifically mentioned. The greater the thickness of the RNFL in any sector the better was the reproducibility in that sector. For macular thickness, the temporal sector (mid zone) showed the worst reproducibility.
Huo YJ, Thomas R, Li L, Cao K, Wang HZ, Wang NL. Comparison of peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness, functional subzones, and macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer in differentiating patients with mild, moderate, and severe open-angle glaucoma. Journal of Glaucoma. 2020;29(9):761–766. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000001598
Karvonen E, Stoor K, Luodonpää M, Hägg P, Lintonen T, Liinamaa J, et al. Diagnostic performance of modern imaging instruments in glaucoma screening. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2020;104(10):1399–1405. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-314795
García-Bella J, Martínez de la Casa JM, Talavero González P, Fernández-Vigo JI, Valcarce Rial L, García-Feijóo J. Variations in retinal nerve fiber layer measurements on optical coherence tomography after implantation of trifocal intraocular lens. European Journal of Ophthalmology. 2017;28(1):32–35. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5301/ejo.5001028
Chopra R, Wagner SK, Keane PA. Optical coherence tomography in the 2020s—outside the eye clinic. Eye. 2020;35(1):236–243. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-020-01263-6
Mohammadzadeh V, Fatehi N, Yarmohammadi A, Lee JW, Sharifipour F, Daneshvar R, et al. Macular imaging with optical coherence tomography in glaucoma. Survey of Ophthalmology. 2020;65(6):597–638. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2020.03.002
Aumann S, Donner S, Fischer J, Müller F. Optical coherence tomography (OCT): principle and technical realization. High Resolution Imaging in Microscopy and Ophthalmology. 2019. pp. 59–85. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16638-0_3
Dong ZM, Wollstein G, Schuman JS. Clinical utility of optical coherence tomography in glaucoma. Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science. 2016;57(9):OCT556. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.16-19933
Lumbroso B, Rispoli M. Guide to interpreting spectral domain optical coherence tomography. 2011. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5005/jp/books/11328
Bhende M, Shetty S, Parthasarathy M, Ramya S. Optical coherence tomography: a guide to interpretation of common macular diseases. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2018;66(1):20. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_902_17
Komaratih AE. Early diagnosis glaucoma using spectral domain OCT. Adv Ophthalmol Vis Syst. 2020;10(3):65‒68. Available from: https://medcraveonline.com/AOVS/early-diagnosis-glaucoma-using-spectral-domain-oct.html
Xu X, Guo X, Xiao H, Mi L, Chen X, Liu X. Reproducibility of macular ganglion cell–inner plexiform layer thickness in normal eyes determined by two different OCT scanning protocols. BMC Ophthalmology. 2017;17(1):37. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-017-0434-2
Z136 Committee. American national standard for safe use of lasers: ANSI Z136.1-2000. New York: Laser Institute of America; 2007. Available from: https://eliceirilab.org/sites/default/files/2017-04/American%20National%20Standard%20for%20Safe%20Use%20of%20Lasers.pdf
Comparison of SDOCT scan types for grading disorganization of retinal inner layers and other morphologic features of diabetic macular edema. Translational Vision Science & Technology. 2020;9(8):45. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.9.8.45
Claessens D, Schuster AK, Krüger RV, Liegl M, Singh L, Kirchhof B. Test-retest-reliability of computer-based metamorphopsia measurement in macular diseases. Klinische Monatsblätter für Augenheilkunde. 2020;238(06):703–710. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1252-2910
Hong S, Kim CY, Lee WS, Seong GJ. Reproducibility of peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness with spectral domain cirrus high-definition optical coherence tomography in normal eyes. Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology. 2010;54(1):43–47. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-009-0762-8
Cabrera DeBuc D, Tian J, Bates N, Somfai GM. Inter-session repeatability of retinal layer thickness in optical coherence tomography. Medical Imaging 2017: Biomedical Applications in Molecular, Structural, and Functional Imaging. 2017. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2254640
Sull AC, Vuong LN, Price LL, Srinivasan VJ, Gorczynska I, Fujimoto JG, et al. Comparison of spectral/fourier domain optical coherence tomography instruments for assessment of normal macular thickness. Retina. 2010;30(2):235–245. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181bd2c3b
Chan A. Normal Macular Thickness Measurements in Healthy Eyes Using Stratus Optical Coherence Tomography. Archives of Ophthalmology. 2006;124(2):193. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.124.2.193
Adhi M, Aziz S, Muhammad K, Adhi MI. Macular thickness by age and gender in healthy eyes using spectral domain optical coherence tomography. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(5):e37638. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037638
Chen X, Tai V, McGeehan B, Ying G-S, Viehland C, Imperio R, et al. Repeatability and reproducibility of axial and lateral measurements on handheld optical coherence tomography systems compared with tabletop system. Translational Vision Science & Technology. 2020;9(11):25. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.9.11.25
Natung T, Keditsu A, Lyngdoh LA, Dkhar B, Prakash G. Normal macular thickness in healthy Indian eyes using spectral domain optical coherence tomography. Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology. 2016;5(3):176–179. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/APO.0000000000000153
García-Franco R, Méndez-Marín D, García-Roa M, Ramirez-Neria P, Valera-Cornejo D, Lansingh VC. Central macular thickness in a healthy Mexican population using huvitz optical coherence tomography. Clinical Ophthalmology. 2020;14:3931–3940. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S272431
Wang KL, Chen X, Stinnett S, Tai V, Winter KP, Tran-Viet D, et al. Understanding the variability of handheld spectral-domain optical coherence tomography measurements in supine infants. PLOS ONE. 2019;14(12):e0225960. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225960
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.