Aim: To report the frequency and severity of retinal thickness measurement errors in a Fourier domain optical coherence tomography (FDOCT) device, Cirrus OCT.
Methods: Data from 209 eyes undergoing Cirrus OCT imaging with the Macular Cube protocol were collected. For each eye, the position of the automated retinal boundary lines used by the Cirrus OCT software for thickness calculations was assessed using a 6-point categorical scale. The presence of errors was correlated with various parameters including: retinal morphological features and disease diagnosis.
Results: Errors of retinal boundary detection were observed in 57.5% of eyes but were severe in only 9.6% of eyes. The identification of subretinal fluid, subretinal tissue, pigment epithelium detachment or a diagnosis of choroidal neovascularisation was associated with more severe errors. Retinal cysts or a diagnosis of retinal vascular disease were less likely to be associated with significant error.
Conclusions: Retinal thickness measurement errors appear to occur less frequently with Fourier domain OCT (Cirrus OCT), but segmentation errors remain a concern, particularly in assessment of eyes with structurally complex retinal disease. With the recent release of multiple FDOCT systems, assessment of segmentation error may be an important factor in determining the relative merits of these systems.
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.
Funding Supported in part by NIH Grant EY03040 and NEI Grant R01 EY014375
Competing interests ACW and SRS are coinventors of Doheny intellectual property related to optical coherence tomography that has been licensed by Topcon Medical Systems, and have also served as consultants for Heidelberg Engineering. However, this is not related to the article’s subject matter.
Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the institutional review board of the University of Southern California.