OCT-angiography: A qualitative and quantitative comparison of 4 OCT-A devices.
OCT-angiography: A qualitative and quantitative comparison of 4 OCT-A devices.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0177059
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Zinkernagel MS
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Munk MR;Giannakaki-Zimmermann H;Berger L;Huf W;Ebneter A;Wolf S;Zinkernagel MS
比较四种oct血管造影（OCT-A）模块的质量。使用四种OCT设备（Topcon DRI-OCT Triton扫描源OCT、Optovue RTVue-XR、Spectralis OCT2原型机、Heidelberg-Engineering和Zeiss Cirrus 5000-HD-OCT）对19名健康志愿者的视网膜进行扫描。由3位独立的视网膜成像专家对设备软件生成的浅表毛细血管丛（SCP）和深毛细血管丛（DCP）的正面OCT-A图像进行评估和评分。使用Angiotool-software评估SCP血管密度。在进行信度评估后，进行共识评分，并根据评分对模块进行排序。不同模组血管密度差异无统计学意义（Zeiss 48.7±4%,Optovue 47.9±3%,Topcon 48.3±2%,Heidelberg 46.5±4%,p = 0.2）。每个模块上可识别的血管分叉数差异显著（Zeiss 2±0.9个，Optovue 2.5±1.2个，Topcon 1.3±0.7个，Heidelberg 0.5±0.6个，p≤0.001）。每个模块的排名因评估参数的不同而不同。在整体排名中，蔡司模组优于中位数90% （Bonferroni校正p值= 0.04）。Optovue优于中位数60%，Topcon优于中位数40%，Heidelberg模块优于中位数10%，但差异无统计学意义。四个评估的OCT-A模块都有其独特的优势，使其与竞争对手区别开来。
To compare the quality of four OCT-angiography(OCT-A) modules. The retina of nineteen healthy volunteers were scanned with four OCT-devices (Topcon DRI-OCT Triton Swept-source OCT, Optovue RTVue-XR, a prototype Spectralis OCT2, Heidelberg-Engineering and Zeiss Cirrus 5000-HD-OCT). The device-software generated en-face OCT-A images of the superficial (SCP) and deep capillary plexuses (DCP) were evaluated and scored by 3 independent retinal imaging experts. The SCP vessel density was assessed using Angiotool-software. After the inter-grader reliability assessment, a consensus grading was performed and the modules were ranked based on their scoring. There was no significant difference in the vessel density among the modules (Zeiss 48.7±4%, Optovue 47.9±3%, Topcon 48.3±2%, Heidelberg 46.5±4%, p = 0.2). The numbers of discernible vessel-bifurcations differed significantly on each module (Zeiss 2±0.9 bifurcations, Optovue 2.5±1.2, Topcon 1.3±0.7 and Heidelberg 0.5±0.6, p≤0.001). The ranking of each module differed depending on the evaluated parameter. In the overall ranking, the Zeiss module was superior and in 90% better than the median (Bonferroni corrected p-value = 0.04). Optovue was better than the median in 60%, Topcon in 40% and Heidelberg module in 10%, however these differences were not statistically significant. Each of the four evaluated OCT-A modules had particular strengths, which differentiated it from their competitors.