Aim To newly describe a spectral-domain (SD) optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) for the cornea and directly compare two OCTA system scans of the same eyes with corneal vascularisation.
Methods Cross-sectional, observational, comparative case series. We performed sequential OCTA scans (10 eyes of 10 subjects with corneal vascularisation,4 scans each eye) repeated using split-spectrum amplitude decorrelation algorithm angiography system (SSADA, AngioVue; Optovue Inc, USA) and SD OCTA (Angioscan; Nidek Co. Ltd, Japan) in the same region of interest. We analysed all scan images for repeatability, image quality and vessel density measurements and compared OCTA systems.
Results We obtained substantial interobserver repeatability in terms of image quality score (κ=0.86) for all 80 OCTA scans (median age 49 years, 50% women). The correlation was moderately good (r=0.721) when comparing vessel density measurements between OCTA systems, but greater in the SSADA compared with SD OCTA system (mean vessel density 20.3±4.9% vs 15.1±4.2%, respectively; p<0.001).
Conclusion In this pilot clinical study, we describe successful delineation of corneal vessels with substantial image quality using a new SD OCTA system. The vessel density measurements were greater using the SSADA compared with SD OCTA system in the same area of corneal vascularisation. Further studies are required to confirm the advantages, limitations and differences between these OCTA systems for the anterior segment.
- Diagnostic tests/investigation
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Handling editor James Chodosh
Contributors All authors met the ICJME criteria: (1) substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content and (3) final approval of the version to be published.
Funding SingHealth Foundation Grant (R1275/81/2015).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Obtained
Ethics approval SingHealth Institutional Ethics Review Committee.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement Any unpublished data may be obtained from the corresponding author.
Correction notice This article has been corrected since it published Online First. The spelling of author surname ‘Schmeterer' has been changed to ’Schmetterer'.
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.