Mihailovic Natasa, Lauermann Jost Lennart, Schubert Friederike, Lahme Larissa, Treder Maximilian, Alten Florian, Eter Nicole, Alnawaiseh Maged
Klinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Münster.
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2019 Sep;236(9):1115-1121. doi: 10.1055/a-0838-5880. Epub 2019 Apr 2.
To compare the expression of motion artifacts in optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A) in healthy subjects using two different devices.
In this study, 25 eyes of 25 healthy volunteers with no history of any ocular disease or ocular surgery were included. OCT-A imaging was performed using the RTVue XR Avanti (Optovue Inc., Fremont, California, USA) and the Spectralis OCT-A (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Deutschland). The macula was imaged twice in each proband with active eye tracking (ET) using a 3 × 3 mm or a 10 × 10° scan, respectively. The expression of motion artifact was analyzed by two independent readers in the superficial OCT-angiogram using the Motion Artifact Score (MAS).
The signal strength index (SSI) was 73.0 ± 7.8 (Optovue) and 39.6 ± 3.6 (Heidelberg), which is equivalent to 73.0% (Optovue SSImax = 100 = 100%) and 79.2% (SSImax = 50 = 100%) of the maximum quality score. Both devices showed a very good image quality (mean MAS Optovue: 1.32 ± 0.551, mean MAS Heidelberg: 1.7 ± 0.789, p = 0.006). Of all measurements, quilting/banding was found in 20% of Optovue patients (10/50) and 6% of Heidelberg patients (3/50). Stretching was found in 4% of Optovue patients (2/50) and in 6% of Heidelberg patients (3/50). Vessel doubling was only seen in one Optovue angiogram (2%) as well as a displacement (2%). Blink lines only existed in three Heidelberg angiograms (6%).
Despite different software and hardware approaches, both devices were able to take high-quality images with a very low prevalence of motion artifacts. Nevertheless, these artifacts still also occur in healthy subjects with good fixation. With regards to MAS, there was a high agreement between the two readers. However, the analysis of artifacts remains complex and requires experience as well as a precise assessment in evaluating OCT-A images.
使用两种不同设备比较健康受试者光学相干断层扫描血管造影（OCT-A）中运动伪影的表现。
本研究纳入了25名无任何眼部疾病或眼部手术史的健康志愿者的25只眼睛。使用RTVue XR Avanti（美国加利福尼亚州弗里蒙特市Optovue公司）和Spectralis OCT-A（德国海德堡海德堡工程公司）进行OCT-A成像。每位受试者分别使用3×3毫米或10×10°扫描，通过主动眼动追踪（ET）对黄斑进行两次成像。两名独立阅片者使用运动伪影评分（MAS）在浅表OCT血管造影中分析运动伪影的表现。
信号强度指数（SSI）分别为73.0±7.8（Optovue）和39.6±3.6（海德堡），分别相当于最大质量评分的73.0%（Optovue，SSImax = 100 = 100%）和79.2%（SSImax = 50 = 100%）。两种设备均显示出非常好的图像质量（Optovue平均MAS：1.32±0.551，海德堡平均MAS：1.7±0.789，p = 0.006）。在所有测量中，20%的Optovue患者（10/50）和6%的海德堡患者（3/50）出现了拼接/条带现象。4%的Optovue患者（2/50）和6%的海德堡患者（3/50）出现了拉伸现象。仅在一张Optovue血管造影中观察到血管加倍（2%）以及移位（2%）。仅在三张海德堡血管造影中存在眨眼线（6%）。
尽管采用了不同的软件和硬件方法，但两种设备均能够获取高质量图像，运动伪影的发生率非常低。然而，这些伪影在固定良好的健康受试者中仍然会出现。关于MAS，两位阅片者之间具有高度一致性。然而，伪影分析仍然很复杂，需要经验以及在评估OCT-A图像时进行精确评估。
