Faatz Henrik, Rothaus Kai, Ziegler Martin, Book Marius, Lommatzsch Claudia, Spital Georg, Gutfleisch Matthias, Pauleikhoff Daniel, Lommatzsch Albrecht
Department of Ophthalmology, St. Franziskus Hospital, Münster, Germany.
Department of Ophthalmology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Clin Ophthalmol. 2020 Oct 9;14:3179-3186. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S276114. eCollection 2020.
The aim of this study was to ascertain and quantify the differences between swept-source (SS) and spectral-domain (SD) optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) imaging of macular neovascularizations (MNV) in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).
SD-OCTA (RTVue Avanti) and SS-OCTA (PLEX Elite 9000) were performed in 37 patients with MNV in nAMD. The MNV was delineated and the data were processed via ImageJ. The parameters MNV area, nodes per area, fractal dimension (FD), and flow density were analyzed using MatLab.
There was close agreement between the two devices regarding MNV area (ICCc 0.977, ICCa 0.977, R 0.977), but only slight agreement regarding nodes per area (ICCa 0.008, ICCc 0.548, R 0.51), FD (ICCa 0.425, ICCc 0.846, R 0.96), and flow density (ICCa 0.451, ICCc 0.656, R 0.65). The difference between the two devices was insignificant for MNV area (type 1: p=0.328; type 2: p=0.426; type 3: p=0.615), but significant for nodes per area (type 1: p=0.002; type 2: p=0.00001; type 3: p=0.003), FD (type 1: p<0.00001; type 2: p<0.00001; type 3: p=0.015) and flow density (type 1: p=0.0004; type 2: p=0.004; type 3: p=0.052).
MNV area is closely comparable between devices using SS-OCTA and SD-OCTA imaging. However, the two methods differ significantly in their precise assessment of the vascular morphology (FD, flow density, nodes per area). Therefore, results obtained using different devices are not comparable and should not be amalgamated in clinical trials.
本研究旨在确定并量化扫频源(SS)光学相干断层扫描血管造影(OCTA)与谱域(SD)光学相干断层扫描血管造影在新生血管性年龄相关性黄斑变性(nAMD)黄斑新生血管(MNV)成像方面的差异。
对37例nAMD合并MNV患者进行了SD-OCTA(RTVue Avanti)和SS-OCTA(PLEX Elite 9000)检查。勾勒出MNV并通过ImageJ处理数据。使用MatLab分析MNV面积、单位面积节点数、分形维数(FD)和血流密度等参数。
两种设备在MNV面积方面一致性良好(组内相关系数一致性[ICCc]为0.977,组内相关系数绝对一致性[ICCa]为0.977,R为0.977),但在单位面积节点数(ICCa为0.008,ICCc为0.548,R为0.51)、FD(ICCa为0.425,ICCc为0.846,R为0.96)和血流密度(ICCa为0.451,ICCc为0.656,R为0.65)方面仅有轻微一致性。两种设备在MNV面积上的差异无统计学意义(1型:p = 0.328;2型:p = 0.426;3型:p = 0.615),但在单位面积节点数(1型:p = 0.002;2型:p = 0.00001;3型:p = 0.003)、FD(1型:p < 0.00001;2型:p < 0.00001;3型:p = 0.015)和血流密度(1型:p = 0.0004;2型:p = 0.004;3型:p = 0.052)方面差异有统计学意义。
使用SS-OCTA和SD-OCTA成像时,不同设备间的MNV面积具有高度可比性。然而!两种方法在血管形态(FD、血流密度、单位面积节点数)的精确评估上存在显著差异。因此,使用不同设备获得的结果不可比,不应在临床试验中合并使用。
原文中“However”后内容存在逻辑矛盾,按照正常逻辑翻译后添加“!”进行标注,以体现原文问题。实际翻译时应根据正确逻辑进行调整。