Munk Marion R, Giannakaki-Zimmermann Helena, Berger Lieselotte, Huf Wolfgang, Ebneter Andreas, Wolf Sebastian, Zinkernagel Martin S
Department of Ophthalmology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland.
Bern Photographic Reading Center, University of Bern, Switzerland.
PLoS One. 2017 May 10;12(5):e0177059. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177059. eCollection 2017.
To compare the quality of four OCT-angiography(OCT-A) modules.
The retina of nineteen healthy volunteers were scanned with four OCT-devices (Topcon DRI-OCT Triton Swept-source OCT, Optovue RTVue-XR, a prototype Spectralis OCT2, Heidelberg-Engineering and Zeiss Cirrus 5000-HD-OCT). The device-software generated en-face OCT-A images of the superficial (SCP) and deep capillary plexuses (DCP) were evaluated and scored by 3 independent retinal imaging experts. The SCP vessel density was assessed using Angiotool-software. After the inter-grader reliability assessment, a consensus grading was performed and the modules were ranked based on their scoring.
There was no significant difference in the vessel density among the modules (Zeiss 48.7±4%, Optovue 47.9±3%, Topcon 48.3±2%, Heidelberg 46.5±4%, p = 0.2). The numbers of discernible vessel-bifurcations differed significantly on each module (Zeiss 2±0.9 bifurcations, Optovue 2.5±1.2, Topcon 1.3±0.7 and Heidelberg 0.5±0.6, p≤0.001). The ranking of each module differed depending on the evaluated parameter. In the overall ranking, the Zeiss module was superior and in 90% better than the median (Bonferroni corrected p-value = 0.04). Optovue was better than the median in 60%, Topcon in 40% and Heidelberg module in 10%, however these differences were not statistically significant.
Each of the four evaluated OCT-A modules had particular strengths, which differentiated it from their competitors.
比较四种光学相干断层扫描血管造影（OCT-A）模块的质量。
使用四种光学相干断层扫描设备（拓普康DRI-OCT Triton扫频源光学相干断层扫描、欧普特视RTVue-XR、原型海德堡Spectralis OCT2、海德堡工程公司和蔡司Cirrus 5000-HD-OCT）对19名健康志愿者的视网膜进行扫描。由3名独立的视网膜成像专家对设备软件生成的浅层（SCP）和深层毛细血管丛（DCP）的OCT-A正面图像进行评估和评分。使用Angiotool软件评估SCP血管密度。在评估者间可靠性评估后，进行共识分级，并根据评分对模块进行排名。
各模块之间的血管密度无显著差异（蔡司48.7±4%，欧普特视47.9±3%，拓普康48.3±2%，海德堡46.5±4%，p = 0.2）。每个模块上可辨别的血管分支数量差异显著（蔡司2±0.9个分支，欧普特视2.5±1.2个，拓普康1.3±0.7个，海德堡0.5±0.6个，p≤0.001）。每个模块的排名因评估参数而异。在总体排名中，蔡司模块表现最佳，比中位数好90%（Bonferroni校正p值 = 0.04）。欧普特视比中位数好的占60%，拓普康占40%，海德堡模块占10%，但这些差异无统计学意义。
四种评估的OCT-A模块各有其独特优势，使其有别于竞争对手。
