Background/aims To compare the diagnostic abilities of Spectralis (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) and Cirrus (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, California, USA) spectral domain–optical coherence tomography (OCT) for retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) defect detection among patients with preperimetric glaucoma (PPG) and early glaucoma (EG).
Methods In this cross-sectional study, a total of 144 eyes (47 healthy, 43 PPG, 54 EG; MD≥−6 dB) of 144 participants underwent Spectralis and Cirrus OCT on the same day. The presence of RNFL defect on red-free RNFL photography and the respective deviation maps of Spectralis and Cirrus OCT was rated. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs), sensitivities and specificities were analysed for each deviation layer to discriminate healthy eyes from PPG and EG eyes.
Results The RNFL, ganglion cell layer (GCL) and retinal layers of Spectralis OCT and the RNFL and macular ganglion cell–inner plexiform layer of Cirrus OCT showed high diagnostic performance (all AUCs >0.8) in discriminating PPG and EG eyes from healthy eyes. Among them, RNFL layer of Cirrus OCT had the largest AUC (0.840 for PPG, 0.959 for EG) but showed no statistical differences from RNFL and retinal layers of Spectralis OCT. The inner plexiform layer (IPL) of Spectralis OCT had the smallest AUC (0.563 for PPG, 0.799 for EG).
Conclusions The Spectralis and Cirrus OCT deviation maps showed good diagnostic abilities except for the IPL layer of Spectralis. In the clinical setting, both Spectralis and Cirrus OCT can be useful for detection of RNFL defects in PPG and EG eyes.
- Diagnostic tests/Investigation
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Contributors SC and JWJ designed the study. SC and MJ collected the data. SC performed the analytical work. SC wrote the paper. YKK, KHP and JWJ reviewed and made corrections. JWJ was the guarantor for this study.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.