Department of Ophthalmology, University of Muenster Medical Center, Muenster, Germany.
Institute of Reproductive and Regenerative Biology, Center of Reproductive Medicine and Andrology, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 18;13(10):e0206045. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206045. eCollection 2018.
To evaluate the repeatability, the reproducibility and the agreement of foveal avascular zone (FAZ) measurements using three different optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A) devices.
This prospective study included 24 eyes of 24 healthy volunteers. OCT-A imaging was performed using RTVue XR Avanti, Canon OCT-HS100 and Spectralis OCT-A. Repeated measurements were performed under the same conditions on two separate days, and the area of the FAZ was determined and analyzed using the above devices.
All three devices showed a high ICC and there was no significant difference between the ICCs (pairwise comparison) of the three devices (Optovue-Canon (p = 0.66); Canon-Heidelberg (p = 0.21); Heidelberg-Optovue (p = 0.37). Agreement analysis of the three devices revealed a significant elevation of FAZ area values with the Heidelberg device and a slight underestimation of the FAZ area with the Canon device. Nevertheless, overall we found a high level of agreement between all of the three devices (ICC ≥ 0.958 (0.905-0.982)).
Good reproducibility and repeatability were observed for all three devices. However, the agreement analysis revealed slight, but significant differences, which might limit alternating use of these devices for clinical research and follow-up examinations.
评估三种不同光学相干断层扫描血管造影(OCT-A)设备测量中心凹无血管区(FAZ)的重复性、可再现性和一致性。
这项前瞻性研究纳入了 24 名健康志愿者的 24 只眼。使用 RTVue XR Avanti、Canon OCT-HS100 和 Spectralis OCT-A 进行 OCT-A 成像。在两天的同一条件下重复测量,并使用上述设备确定和分析 FAZ 区域。
所有三种设备的 ICC 均较高,三种设备的 ICC 之间无显著差异(两两比较)(Optovue-Canon(p=0.66);Canon-Heidelberg(p=0.21);Heidelberg-Optovue(p=0.37))。三种设备的一致性分析显示,Heidelberg 设备的 FAZ 区域值显著升高,而 Canon 设备的 FAZ 区域值略有低估。然而,总体而言,我们发现所有三种设备之间具有高度的一致性(ICC≥0.958(0.905-0.982))。
所有三种设备均具有良好的可重复性和可再现性。然而,一致性分析显示出轻微但显著的差异,这可能限制了这些设备在临床研究和随访检查中的交替使用。