Aims To assess the accuracy of the Topcon 3D OCT Viewer in analysing Stratus OCT data.
Methods Randomly selected fast macular thickness map protocol optical coherence tomography (OCT) raw data were exported from the Stratus OCT database and imported into and analysed with the Topcon 3D OCT Viewer. The segmentation error (SE) rates and scores were compared between the two programs. Differences in the retinal thickness between the two programs were measured in both the SE (–) group and the SE (+) group.
Results 356 eyes were analysed. The SE rate and mean SE score were significantly lower with the Topcon 3D OCT Viewer than with Stratus OCT ((30.9% (110/356) vs 38.2% (136/356), p=0.011; 0.33±0.59 vs 0.48±0.96, p=0.003), respectively). In the SE (–) group, the mean of the differences between the two programs was −2.79 μm (p<0.001) in the central 1 mm zone of the nine ETDRS areas and 1.49 μm (p=0.152) for the automated centre point thickness.
Conclusions The Topcon 3D OCT Viewer analysed Stratus OCT data very well and displayed better segmentation performance. The Topcon 3D OCT Viewer program can be used interchangeably for the measurement of macular thickness, but careful interpretation by a clinician is needed.
- Spectral domain OCT
- time domain OCT
- OCT viewer
- segmentation error
- retinal thickness
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.
This study was presented at the Korean Ophthalmological Society's 101st Annual Meeting, 18–19 April 2009, Daejeon, Korea.
Funding This study was supported by a grant of the Korean Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry for Health, Welfare & Family Affairs, Republic of Korea (A102024).
Competing interests None
Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the Institutional Review Board approval was obtained from Korea University Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.