Performance of Topcon 3D optical coherence tomography‑2000 in re‑analyzing OCT‑1000 raw data

Chen,Binyao; Chen,Haoyu; Zheng,Ce; Zhang,Mingzhi

doi:10.3892/etm.2019.7483

Performance of Topcon 3D optical coherence tomography‑2000 in re‑analyzing OCT‑1000 raw data

Authors:
- Binyao Chen
- Haoyu Chen
- Ce Zheng
- Mingzhi Zhang
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Ophthalmology, Joint Shantou International Eye Center, Shantou University and The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shantou, Guangdong 515041, P.R. China, Department of Ophthalmology, Shanghai Children's Hospital, Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200062, P.R. China
Published online on: April 12, 2019 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2019.7483
Pages: 4395-4402
Copyright: © Chen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy of the Topcon 3D optical coherence tomography (OCT)‑2000 built‑in algorithm in analyzing OCT data acquired using the Topcon 3D OCT‑1000 instrument. Raw data of 3D macular 512x128 scans acquired using the Topcon 3D OCT‑1000 instrument were analyzed using the Topcon 3D OCT‑2000. The occurrence and severity of segmentation error (SE) were compared between the built‑in algorithms of the two instruments. Agreement in retinal thickness measurement between the two systems was evaluated in normal and abnormal eyes. A total of 87 eyes from 87 patients were included. The image quality score evaluated by Topcon OCT‑2000 software was lower than that of OCT‑1000. No statistically significant difference was identified in the SE rate (77.01 vs. 74.71%; P=0.864) or mean SE score (15.97 vs. 16.30; P=0.763) of the total scan area between the two algorithms. Intraclass correlation coefficient values for retinal thickness were high (0.951‑0.995). The mean paired difference in retinal thickness was 3.72‑5.77 µm (P<0.05) in normal and 0.61‑9.52 µm (P<0.05) in abnormal eyes. No significant difference in retinal segmentation performance was identified between OCT‑2000 and OCT‑1000 when analyzing OCT‑1000 raw data. In conclusion, retinal thickness measurements analyzed by the two OCT algorithms may be used interchangeably in normal eyes. Abnormal eyes required investigations as big differences in retinal thickness measurements may occur due to severe SEs.

View Figures

View References

1	Bhende M, Shetty S, Parthasarathy MK and Ramya S: Optical coherence tomography: A guide to interpretation of common macular diseases. Indian J Ophthalmol. 66:20–35. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Oberwahrenbrock T, Traber GL, Lukas S, Gabilondo I, Nolan R, Songster C, Balk L, Petzold A, Paul F, Villoslada P, et al: Multicenter reliability of semiautomatic retinal layer segmentation using OCT. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 5:e4492018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Waldman AT, Liu GT, Lavery AM, Liu G, Gaetz W, Aleman TS and Banwell BL: Optical coherence tomography and visual evoked potentials in pediatric MS. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 4:e3562017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	You Y, Graham EC, Shen T, Yiannikas C, Parratt J, Gupta V, Barton J, Dwyer M, Barnett MH, Fraser CL, et al: Progressive inner nuclear layer dysfunction in non-optic neuritis eyes in MS. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 5:e4272018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Bennett J, de Seze J, Lana-Peixoto M, Palace J, Waldman A, Schippling S, Tenembaum S, Banwell B, Greenberg B, Levy M, et al: Neuromyelitis optica and multiple sclerosis: Seeing differences through optical coherence tomography. Mult Scler. 21:678–688. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Wojtkowski M, Srinivasan V, Fujimoto JG, Ko T, Schuman JS, Kowalczyk A and Duker JS: Three-dimensional retinal imaging with high-speed ultrahigh-resolution optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology. 112:1734–1746. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Reichel E, Ho J and Duker JS: OCT Units: Which One Is Right for Me? Review of ophthalmology, Boston. 16:622009.
8	Roth NM, Saidha S, Zimmermann H, Brandt AU, Isensee J, Benkhellouf-Rutkowska A, Dornauer M, Kühn AA, Müller T, Calabresi PA and Paul F: Photoreceptor layer thinning in idiopathic Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. 29:1163–1170. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Topcon, . Optical Coherence Tomography 3D OCT-2000 Series. http://pdf.medicalexpo.com/pdf/topcon-europe-medical/brochure-topcon-3d-oct-2000-series/77876-75588-_12.html
10	Larsson J, Zhu M, Sutter F and Gillies MC: Relation between reduction of foveal thickness and visual acuity in diabetic macular edema treated with intravitreal triamcinolone. Am J Ophthalmol. 139:802–806. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Ooto S, Hangai M, Sakamoto A, Tomidokoro A, Araie M, Otani T, Kishi S, Matsushita K, Maeda N, Shirakashi M, et al: Three-dimensional profile of macular retinal thickness in normal Japanese eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 51:465–473. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Haouchine B, Massin P, Tadayoni R, Erginay A and Gaudric A: Diagnosis of macular pseudoholes and lamellar macular holes by optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol. 138:732–739. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Sadda SR, Wu Z, Walsh AC, Richine L, Dougall J, Cortez R and LaBree LD: Errors in retinal thickness measurements obtained by optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology. 113:285–293. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Song Y, Lee BR, Shin YW and Lee YJ: Overcoming segmentation errors in measurements of macular thickness made by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Retina. 32:569–580. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Kim SW, Oh J, Yang KS, Kim YH, Park JW, Rhim JW and Huh K: Stratus OCT image analysis with spectral-domain OCT (Topcon 3D OCT Viewer). Br J Ophthalmol. 96:93–98. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Kim M, Lee SJ, Han J, Yu SY and Kwak HW: Segmentation error and macular thickness measurements obtained with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography devices in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Indian J Ophthalmol. 61:213–217. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Varga BE, Tátrai E, Cabrera DeBuc D and Somfai GM: The effect of incorrect scanning distance on boundary detection errors and macular thickness measurements by spectral domain optical coherence tomography: A cross sectional study. BMC Ophthalmol. 14:1482014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Ho J, Sull AC, Vuong LN, Chen Y, Liu J, Fujimoto JG, Schuman JS and Duker JS: Assessment of artifacts and reproducibility across spectral- and time-domain optical coherence tomography devices. Ophthalmology. 116:1960–1970. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Tan CS, Cheong KX, Lim LW and Sadda SR: Comparison of macular choroidal thicknesses from swept source and spectral domain optical coherence tomography. Br J Ophthalmol. 100:995–999. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Falavarjani KG, Mehrpuya A and Amirkourjani F: Effect of spectral domain optical coherence tomography image quality on macular thickness measurements and error rate. Curr Eye Res. 42:282–286. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	de Boer JF, Cense B, Park BH, Pierce MC, Tearney GJ and Bouma BE: Improved signal-to-noise ratio in spectral-domain compared with time-domain optical coherence tomography. Opt Lett. 28:2067–2069. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Sander B, Al-Abiji HA, Kofod M and Jørgensen TM: Do different spectral domain OCT hardwares measure the same? Comparison of retinal thickness using third-party software. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 253:1915–1921. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Krebs I, Falkner-Radler C, Hagen S, Haas P, Brannath W, Lie S, Ansari-Shahrezaei S and Binder S: Quality of the threshold algorithm in age-related macular degeneration: Stratus versus Cirrus OCT. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 50:995–1000. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Odell D, Dubis AM, Lever JF, Stepien KE and Carroll J: Assessing errors inherent in OCT-derived macular thickness maps. J Ophthalmol. 2011:6925742011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Bedell HE: A functional test of foveal fixation based upon differential cone directional sensitivity. Vision Res. 20:557–560. 1980. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Alshareef RA, Dumpala S, Rapole S, Januwada M, Goud A, Peguda HK and Chhablani J: Prevalence and distribution of segmentation errors in macular ganglion cell analysis of healthy eyes using cirrus HD-OCT. PLoS One. 11:e01553192016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Ray R, Stinnett SS and Jaffe GJ: Evaluation of image artifact produced by optical coherence tomography of retinal pathology. Am J Ophthalmol. 139:18–29. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Bahrami B, Ewe SYP, Hong T, Zhu M, Ong G, Luo K and Chang A: Influence of retinal pathology on the reliability of macular thickness measurement: A comparison between optical coherence tomography devices. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 48:319–325. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Waldstein SM, Gerendas BS, Montuoro A, Simader C and Schmidt-Erfurth U: Quantitative comparison of macular segmentation performance using identical retinal regions across multiple spectral-domain optical coherence tomography instruments. Br J Ophthalmol. 99:794–800. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Ho J, Adhi M, Baumal C, Liu J, Fujimoto JG, Duker JS and Waheed NK: Agreement and reproducibility of retinal pigment epithelial detachment volumetric measurements through optical coherence tomography. Retina. 35:467–472. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI