TY - JOUR
T1 - Artifact rates for 2D retinal nerve fiber layer thickness versus 3d neuroretinal rim thickness using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography
AU - Park, Elli A.
AU - Tsikata, Edem
AU - Lee, Jenny Jyoung
AU - Shieh, Eric
AU - Braaf, Boy
AU - Vakoc, Benjamin J.
AU - Bouma, Brett E.
AU - de Boer, Johannes F.
AU - Chen, Teresa C.
PY - 2020/9
Y1 - 2020/9
N2 - Purpose: To compare the rates of clinically significant artifacts for two-dimensional peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness versus three-dimensional (3D) neuroretinal rim thickness using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). Methods: Only one eye per patient was used for analysis of 120 glaucoma patients and 114 normal patients. For RNFL scans and optic nerve scans, 15 artifact types were calculated per B-scan and per eye. Neuroretinal rim tissue was quantified by the minimum distance band (MDB). Global MDB neuroretinal rim thicknesses were calculated before and after manual deletion of B-scans with artifacts and subsequent automated interpo-lation. A clinically significant artifact was defined as one requiring manual correction or repeat scanning. Results: Among glaucomatous eyes, artifact rates per B-scan were significantly more common in RNFL scans (61.7%, 74 of 120) compared to B-scans in neuroretinal rim volume scans (20.9%, 1423 of 6820) (95% confidence interval [CI], 31.6–50.0; P < 0.0001). For clinically significant artifact rates per eye, optic nerve scans had significantly fewer artifacts (15.8% of glaucomatous eyes, 13.2% of normal eyes) compared to RNFL scans (61.7% of glaucomatous eyes, 25.4% of normal eyes) (glaucoma group: 95% CI, 34.1–57.5, P < 0.0001; normal group: 95% CI, 1.3–23.3, P = 0.03). Conclusions: Compared to the most commonly used RNFL thickness scans, optic nerve volume scans less frequently require manual correction or repeat scanning to obtain accurate measurements. Translational Relevance: This paper illustrates the potential for 3D OCT algorithms to improve in vivo imaging in glaucoma.
AB - Purpose: To compare the rates of clinically significant artifacts for two-dimensional peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness versus three-dimensional (3D) neuroretinal rim thickness using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). Methods: Only one eye per patient was used for analysis of 120 glaucoma patients and 114 normal patients. For RNFL scans and optic nerve scans, 15 artifact types were calculated per B-scan and per eye. Neuroretinal rim tissue was quantified by the minimum distance band (MDB). Global MDB neuroretinal rim thicknesses were calculated before and after manual deletion of B-scans with artifacts and subsequent automated interpo-lation. A clinically significant artifact was defined as one requiring manual correction or repeat scanning. Results: Among glaucomatous eyes, artifact rates per B-scan were significantly more common in RNFL scans (61.7%, 74 of 120) compared to B-scans in neuroretinal rim volume scans (20.9%, 1423 of 6820) (95% confidence interval [CI], 31.6–50.0; P < 0.0001). For clinically significant artifact rates per eye, optic nerve scans had significantly fewer artifacts (15.8% of glaucomatous eyes, 13.2% of normal eyes) compared to RNFL scans (61.7% of glaucomatous eyes, 25.4% of normal eyes) (glaucoma group: 95% CI, 34.1–57.5, P < 0.0001; normal group: 95% CI, 1.3–23.3, P = 0.03). Conclusions: Compared to the most commonly used RNFL thickness scans, optic nerve volume scans less frequently require manual correction or repeat scanning to obtain accurate measurements. Translational Relevance: This paper illustrates the potential for 3D OCT algorithms to improve in vivo imaging in glaucoma.
KW - Artifact
KW - Glaucoma
KW - Minimum distance band
KW - Optic nerve
KW - Optical coherence tomography
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85090629821&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85090629821&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/6463ed15-8b99-371a-b417-dc37e9b4ff76/
U2 - 10.1167/tvst.9.10.10
DO - 10.1167/tvst.9.10.10
M3 - Article
VL - 9
SP - 1
EP - 12
JO - TRANSLATIONAL VISION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
JF - TRANSLATIONAL VISION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
SN - 2164-2591
IS - 10
M1 - 10
ER -