Abstract
Purpose
To compare a time-domain (Stratus) and a spectral-domain (Spectralis) optical coherence tomography (OCT) device in assessing foveal thickness in healthy subjects.
Methods
In this observational study 40 healthy subjects (40 eyes) underwent Stratus OCT and Spectralis OCT measurements of foveal thickness using three consecutive horizontal and vertical B-scan. Paired samples t-test was used to compare means between Stratus and Spectralis OCT measurements. Coefficient of variation (CoV) was used to compare dispersion in datasets. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to quantify linear relation between Spectralis and Stratus OCT measurements. To assess agreement between Spectralis and Stratus OCT foveal thickness measurements, the Bland and Altman plots were used.
Results
Sample age ranged from 19 to 49 years (mean 33.25, standard deviation (SD) ±4.22).
The Spectralis OCT foveal thickness measurements resulted significantly higher than those obtained with Stratus OCT (227.64±11.74 vs 144.36±12.25 μm, and 227.63±11.43 vs 144.92±12.34 μm, for horizontal and vertical foveal thickness, respectively) (P<0.05). Coefficient of variations were 5.16 and 5.02% using Spectralis OCT, and 8.49 and 8.51% using Stratus OCT. Mean Spectralis/Stratus ratio was 1.58 for both horizontal and vertical measurements. A linear relation between the two technologies was found (rhoriz=0.899 and rvert=0.869) (P<0.001).
Conclusions
A good correlation between Stratus and Spectralis OCT foveal measurements was found, independently of retinal thickness. This preliminary study suggests the existence of a conversion factor between Stratus and Spectralis OCT when measuring healthy foveal thickness.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Huang D, Swanson EA, Lin CP, Schuman JS, Stinson WG, Chang W et al. Optical coherence tomography. Science 1991; 254: 1178–1181.
Puliafito CA, Hee MR, Lin CP, Reichel E, Schuman JS, Duker JS et al. Imaging of macular diseases with optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 1995; 102: 217–229.
Wojtkowski M, Leitgeb R, Kowalczyk A, Bajraszewski T, Fercher AF . In vivo human retinal imaging by Fourier domain optical coherence tomography. J Biomed Opt 2002; 7: 457–463.
Nassif N, Cense B, Park BH, Yun SH, Chen TC, Bouma BE et al. In vivo human retinal imaging by ultrahigh-speed spectral domain optical coherence tomography. Opt Lett 2004; 29: 480–482.
Wojtkowski M, Bajraszewski T, Targowski P, Kowalczyk A . Real-time in vivo imaging by high-speed spectral optical coherence tomography. Opt Lett 2003; 28: 1745–1747.
Wojtkowski M, Bajraszewski T, czyñska I, Targowski P, Kowalczyk A, Wasilewski W et al. Ophthalmic imaging by spectral optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol 2004; 138 (3): 412–419.
Chen TC, Cense B, Pierce MC, Nassif N, Park BH, Yun SH et al. Spectral domain optical coherence tomography: ultra-high speed, ultra-high resolution ophthalmic imaging. Arch Ophthalmol 2005; 123: 1715–1720.
de Boer JF, Cense B, Park BH, Pierce MC, Tearney GJ, Bouma BE . Improved signal-to-noise ratio in spectral-domain compared with time-domain optical coherence tomography. Opt Lett 2003; 28: 2067–2069.
Lumbroso B, Rosen R, Rispoli M . Principi e tecniche spectral OCT. In: Lumbroso B, Rosen R, Rispoli M (eds). Capire l’OCT spectral, Chapter 1 I.N.C: Rome, 2008; 9–10.
Frank H, Althoen SC . The coefficient of variation. In: Frank H, Althoen SC (eds). Statistics: Concepts and Applications, Chapter 4.b Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1995; 58–59.
Bland JM, Altman DG . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307–310.
Bland JM, Altman DG . Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8 (2): 135–160.
Baumann M, Gentile RC, Liebmann JM . Reproducibility of retinal thickness measurements in normal eyes using optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers 1998; 29: 280–285.
Koozekanani D, Roberts C, Katz SE, Herderick EE . Inter-session repeatability of macular thickness measurements with Humphrey 2000 OCT. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41: 1486–1491.
Paunescu LA, Schuman JS, Price LL, Stark PC, Beaton S, Ishikawa H et al. Reproducibility of nerve fiber thickness, macular thickness, and optic nerve head measurements using stratus OCT. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004; 45 (6): 1716–1724.
Costa RA, Skaf M, Melo Jr LA, Calucci D, Cardillo JA, Castro JC et al. Retinal assessment using optical coherence tomography. Prog Retin Eye Res 2006; 25: 325–353.
Legarreta JE, Gregori G, Punjabi OS, Knighton RW, Lalwani GA, Puliafito CA . Macular thickness measurements in normal eyes using spectral domain optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 2008; 39 (Suppl 4): S43–S49.
Leung CK, Cheung CY, Weinreb RN, Lee G, Lin DS, Pang CP et al. Comparison of macular thickness measurements between time domain and spectral domain optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008; 49: 4893–4897.
Forte R, Cennamo GL, Finelli ML, Crecchio GD . Comparison of time domain Stratus OCT and spectral domain SLO/OCT for assessment of macular thickness and volume. Eye 2008. [E-pub ahead of print 12 December 2008].
Costa RA, Calucci D, Skaf M, Cardillo JA, Castro JC, Melo Jr LA et al. Optical coherence tomography 3: automatic delineation of the outer neural retinal boundary and its influence on retinal thickness measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004; 45: 2399–2406.
Pons ME, Garcia-Valenzuela E . Redefining the limit of the outer retina in optical coherence tomography scans. Ophthalmology 2005; 112: 1079–1085.
Baumann M, Gentile RC, Liebmann JM, Ritch R . Reproducibility of retinal thickness measurements in normal eyes using optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers 1998; 29: 280–285.
Massin P, Vicaut E, Haouchine B, Erginay A, Paques M, Gaudric A . Reproducibility of retinal mapping using optical coherence tomography. Arch Ophthalmol 2001; 119: 1135–1142.
Chan A, Duker JS, Ko TH, Fujimoto JG, Schuman JS . Normal macular thickness measurements in healthy eyes using stratus optical coherence tomography. Arch Ophthalmol 2006; 124 (2): 193–198.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Conflict of interest: None. Proprietory interest: None.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carpineto, P., Nubile, M., Toto, L. et al. Correlation in foveal thickness measurements between spectral-domain and time-domain optical coherence tomography in normal individuals. Eye 24, 251–258 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2009.76
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2009.76
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
Comparison between two multimodal imaging platforms: Nidek Mirante and Heidelberg Spectralis
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2021)
-
Foveal Abnormality associated with epiretinal Tissue of medium reflectivity and Increased blue-light fundus Autofluorescence Signal (FATIAS)
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2019)
-
Comparability of retinal thickness measurements using different scanning protocols on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography
International Ophthalmology (2016)
-
The effects of ocular magnification on Spectralis spectral domain optical coherence tomography scan length
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2015)
-
Calculating the predicted retinal thickness from spectral domain and time domain optical coherence tomography – comparison of different methods
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2014)
