Article Text

PDF
Comparing optical coherence tomography radial and cube scan patterns for measuring Bruch's membrane opening minimum rim width (BMO-MRW) in glaucoma and healthy eyes: cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis
  1. Sami W Kabbara,
  2. Linda M Zangwill,
  3. Rusdeep Mundae,
  4. Naama Hammel,
  5. Christopher Bowd,
  6. Felipe A Medeiros,
  7. Robert N Weinreb,
  8. Akram Belghith
  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute, University of California, San Diego, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Akram Belghith, Department of Ophthalmology, Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Shiley Eye Institute and University ofCalifornia San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0946, USA; abelghith{at}ucsd.edu

Abstract

Aim To compare the cube and radial scan patterns of the spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) for quantifying the Bruch's membrane opening minimum rim width (BMO-MRW).

Methods Sixty healthy eyes and 189 glaucomatous eyes were included. The optic nerve head cube and radial pattern scans were acquired using Spectralis SD-OCT. BMO-MRWs were automatically delineated using the San Diego Automated Layer Segmentation Algorithm. The BMO-MRW diagnostic accuracy for glaucoma detection and rates of change derived from the two scan patterns were compared.

Results There was a significant difference between the baseline global BMO-MRW measurements of cube and radial scans for healthy (301.9±57.8 µm and 334.7±61.8 µm, respectively, p<0.003) and glaucoma eyes (181.2±63.0 µm and 210.2±67.2 µm, respectively, p<0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for differentiating between healthy and glaucoma eyes was 0.90 for both the radial scan-based and cube scan-based BMO-MRW. No significant difference in the rate of BMO-MRW change (mean follow-up years) by scan pattern was found among both healthy (cube: −1.47 µm/year, radial: −1.53 µm/year; p=0.48) (1.6 years) and glaucoma eyes (cube: −2.37 µm/year, radial: −2.28 µm/year; p=0.45) (2.6 years).

Conclusion Although the cube scan-based BMO-MRW was significantly smaller than the radial scan-based BMO-MRW, we found no significant difference between the two scan patterns for detecting glaucoma, identifying BMO location and measuring the rate of BMO-MRW change. These results suggest that although BMO-MRW estimates are not interchangeable, both scan patterns can be used for monitoring BMO-MRW changes over time.

  • BMO
  • BMO-MRW
  • OCT
  • Glaucoma

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors SWK, LMZ and AB were the principal investigators who conceived and designed the study. AB undertook the analyses. This manuscript was drafted by SWK, LMZ, RM, NH and AB, and revised by CB, FAM and RNW and approved by all authors.

  • Funding EY11008, U10EY14267, EY019869, EY021818, P30EY022589, Genentech, San Francisco, CA, and participant retention incentive grants in the form of glaucoma medication at no cost from Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, TX; Allergan, Dublin, Ireland; Pfizer, New York, NY; and Santen Pharmaceutical, Osaka, Japan. Unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness, New York, NY.

  • Competing interests FAM: Carl-Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA; Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany; Topcon Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan; Ametek, Berwyn, PA; Bausch+Lomb, Bridgewater, NJ; Allergan, Dublin, Ireland; Sensimed AG, Lausanne, Switzerland; Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, TX. RNW: Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, TX; Allergan, Dublin, Ireland; Bausch+Lomb, Bridgewater, NJ; Carl-Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA; Topcon Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan; Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany; Genentech, San Francisco, CA; Optovue, Fremont, CA. LMZ: Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA; Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany; Optovue, Fremont, CA; Topcon Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan; Quark Pharmaceuticals, Fremont, CA.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Ethics approval University of California San Diego Human Subjects Committee and the UCSD Institutional Review Board (IRB).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.