Centre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science (incorporating Lions Eye Institute), The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Ocular Tissue Engineering Laboratory, Lions Eye Institute, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2022 Apr 1;63(4):12. doi: 10.1167/iovs.63.4.12.
Foveal center marking is a key step in retinal image analysis. We investigated the discordance between the adaptive optics (AO) montage center (AMC) and the foveal pit center (FPC) and its implications for cone mosaic analysis using a commercial flood-illumination AO camera.
Thirty eyes of 30 individuals (including 15 healthy and 15 patients with rod-cone dystrophy) were included. Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography was used to determine the FPC, and flood-illumination AO imaging was performed with overlapping image frames to create an AO montage. The AMC was determined by averaging the (0,0) coordinates in the four paracentral overlapping AO image frames. Cone mosaic measurements at various retinal eccentricities were compared between corresponding retinal loci relative to the AMC or FPC.
AMCs were located temporally to the FPCs in 14 of 15 eyes in both groups. The average AMC-FPC discordance was 0.85° among healthy controls and 0.33° among patients with rod-cone dystrophy (P < 0.05). The distance of the AMC from the FPC was a significant determinant of the cone density (β estimate = 218 cells/deg2/deg; 95% confidence interval [CI], 107-330; P < 0.001) and inter-cone distance (β estimate = 0.28 arcmin/deg; 95% CI, 0.15-0.40; P < 0.001), after adjustment for age, sex, axial length, spherical equivalent, eccentricity, and disease status.
There is a marked mismatch between the AMC and FPC in healthy eyes that may be modified by disease process such as rod-cone dystrophy. We recommend users of AO imaging systems carefully align the AO montage with a foveal anatomical landmark, such as the FPC, to ensure precise and reproducible localization of the eccentricities and regions of interest for cone mosaic analysis.
黄斑中心定位是视网膜图像分析的关键步骤。我们使用商业 flood-illumination AO 相机研究了自适应光学（AO）蒙片中心（AMC）与黄斑中心凹（FPC）之间的差异及其对锥体细胞镶嵌分析的影响。
共纳入 30 只眼（包括 15 名健康人和 15 名杆锥细胞营养不良患者）。采用频域光学相干断层扫描确定 FPC，使用重叠图像帧进行 flood-illumination AO 成像以创建 AO 蒙片。通过在四个旁中心重叠的 AO 图像帧的（0，0）坐标处取平均值来确定 AMC。在各种视网膜偏心度下，比较了相对于 AMC 或 FPC 的相应视网膜部位的锥体细胞镶嵌测量值。
在两组中，15 只眼中的 14 只眼的 AMCs 位于颞侧的 FPC 处。健康对照组的平均 AMC-FPC 差异为 0.85°，杆锥细胞营养不良患者为 0.33°（P<0.05）。AMC 距 FPC 的距离是影响锥体细胞密度（β估计值为 218 个/度 2/度；95%置信区间 [CI]，107-330；P<0.001）和锥体细胞间距离（β估计值为 0.28 弧分/度；95% CI，0.15-0.40；P<0.001）的重要决定因素，校正年龄、性别、眼轴长度、等效球镜、偏心度和疾病状态后。
在健康眼中，AMC 与 FPC 之间存在明显的不匹配，这种不匹配可能会被杆锥细胞营养不良等疾病过程所改变。我们建议 AO 成像系统的使用者仔细将 AO 蒙片与黄斑解剖学标志（如 FPC）对齐，以确保精确和可重复的偏心度和锥体细胞镶嵌分析的感兴趣区域定位。
