Top

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology

Published in:

01-07-2021 | Retinal Diseases | Retinal Disorders

Comparison between two multimodal imaging platforms: Nidek Mirante and Heidelberg Spectralis

Authors: Kimberly Spooner, Long Phan, Mariano Cozzi, Thomas Hong, Giovanni Staurenghi, Eugenia Chu, Andrew A Chang

Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology | Issue 7/2021

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the reliability and comparability of retinal measurements obtained with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT), optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA), confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (cSLO) colour images, and fundus autofluorescence (FAF) between two multimodal imaging platforms in eyes with macular pathology and normal, healthy volunteers.

Methods

This cross-sectional, multi-centre, instrument validation study recruited 94 consecutive subjects. All participants underwent a dilated examination and were scanned consecutively on the Heidelberg Spectralis (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) and Nidek Mirante (Nidek Co. Ltd., Gamagori, Japan) devices. Agreement between device images were evaluated from measures of the central retinal thickness (CRT), presence of segmentation and fixation imaging artefacts (IA), foveal avascular zone (FAZ) measurements; as well as sensitivity and specificity values from the detection of atrophy on fundus autofluorescence (FAF), drusen, subretinal drusenoid deposits, geographic atrophy, epiretinal membrane, fibrosis and haemorrhage on multicolour imaging, and agreement between devices and groups.

Results

Compared with reference clinical examination, sensitivity values for the identification of retinal features using sole device images ranged from 100% for epiretinal membranes to 66.7% for subretinal drusenoid deposits (SSD). Mean absolute difference for CRT between OCT devices was 3.78 μm (95% confidence interval [CI]: − 21.39 to 28.95, P = 0.809). Differences in the superficial and deep capillary plexus FAZ area on OCTA between devices were not statistically significant (P = 0.881 and P = 0.595, respectively). IAs were significantly increased in the presence of macular pathology.

Conclusion

Comparison of retinal measurements between the OCT devices did not differ significantly. Common ultrastructural biomarkers of multiple macular pathologies were identified with high sensitivities and specificities, with good agreement between graders, indicating that they can be identified with comparable confidence in retinal imaging between the two devices.

Meyer CH, Saxena S, Sadda SR (2017) Spectral domain optical coherence tomography in macular diseases. Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-3610-8

Spaide RF (2012) Questioning optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 119 (11):2203-2204.e2201. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.09.009

Lauermann JL, Woetzel AK, Treder M, Alnawaiseh M, Clemens CR, Eter N, Alten F (2018) Prevalences of segmentation errors and motion artifacts in OCT-angiography differ among retinal diseases. Graefe’s archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie 256(10):1807–1816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-018-4053-2CrossRefPubMed

Rosenfeld PJ (2016) Optical coherence tomography and the development of antiangiogenic therapies in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science 57 (9):Oct14-26. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.16-19969

Bogunovic H, Venhuizen F, Klimscha S, Apostolopoulos S, Bab-Hadiashar A, Bagci U, Beg MF, Bekalo L, Chen Q, Ciller C, Gopinath K, Gostar AK, Jeon K, Ji Z, Kang SH, Koozekanani DD, Lu D, Morley D, Parhi KK, Park HS, Rashno A, Sarunic M, Shaikh S, Sivaswamy J, Tennakoon R, Yadav S, De Zanet S, Waldstein SM, Gerendas BS, Klaver C, Sanchez CI, Schmidt-Erfurth U (2019) RETOUCH: the retinal OCT fluid detection and segmentation benchmark and challenge. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 38(8):1858–1874. https://doi.org/10.1109/tmi.2019.2901398CrossRefPubMed

Grover S, Murthy RK, Brar VS, Chalam KV (2010) Comparison of retinal thickness in normal eyes using Stratus and Spectralis optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 51(5):2644–2647. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.09-4774CrossRefPubMed

Carpineto P, Nubile M, Toto L, Aharrh Gnama A, Marcucci L, Mastropasqua L, Ciancaglini M (2010) Correlation in foveal thickness measurements between spectral-domain and time-domain optical coherence tomography in normal individuals. Eye (London, England) 24(2):251–258. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2009.76CrossRef

Taban M, Sharma S, Williams DR, Waheed N, Kaiser PK (2009) Comparing retinal thickness measurements using automated fast macular thickness map versus six-radial line scans with manual measurements. Ophthalmology 116(5):964–970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.12.033CrossRefPubMed

Ghasia FF, El-Dairi M, Freedman SF, Rajani A, Asrani S (2015) Reproducibility of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography measurements in adult and pediatric glaucoma. J Glaucoma 24(1):55–63. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0b013e31829521dbCrossRefPubMed

10.

Bhende M, Shetty S, Parthasarathy MK, Ramya S (2018) Optical coherence tomography: a guide to interpretation of common macular diseases. Indian J Ophthalmol 66(1):20–35. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_902_17CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Murthy RK, Haji S, Sambhav K, Grover S, Chalam KV (2016) Clinical applications of spectral domain optical coherence tomography in retinal diseases. Biom J 39(2):107–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bj.2016.04.003CrossRef

12.

Spaide RF, Klancnik JM Jr, Cooney MJ (2015) Retinal vascular layers imaged by fluorescein angiography and optical coherence tomography angiography. JAMA ophthalmology 133(1):45–50. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.3616CrossRefPubMed

13.

Matsunaga D, Yi J, Puliafito CA, Kashani AH (2014) OCT angiography in healthy human subjects. Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina 45(6):510–515. https://doi.org/10.3928/23258160-20141118-04CrossRef

14.

Corvi F, Pellegrini M, Erba S, Cozzi M, Staurenghi G, Giani A (2018) Reproducibility of vessel density, fractal dimension, and foveal avascular zone using 7 different optical coherence tomography angiography devices. Am J Ophthalmol 186:25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2017.11.011CrossRefPubMed

15.

Rabiolo A, Gelormini F, Marchese A, Cicinelli MV, Triolo G, Sacconi R, Querques L, Bandello F, Querques G (2018) Macular perfusion parameters in different angiocube sizes: does the size matter in quantitative optical coherence tomography angiography? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 59(1):231–237. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.17-22359CrossRefPubMed

16.

Sharp PF, Manivannan A, Xu H, Forrester JV (2004) The scanning laser ophthalmoscope--a review of its role in bioscience and medicine. Phys Med Biol 49(7):1085–1096. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/49/7/001CrossRefPubMed

17.

Aumann S, Donner S, Fischer J, Müller F (2019) Optical coherence tomography (OCT): principle and technical realization. In: Bille JF (ed) High resolution imaging in microscopy and ophthalmology: new frontiers in biomedical optics. Springer Copyright 2019, The Author(s). Cham (CH), pp 59-85. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16638-0_3

18.

Schmitz-Valckenberg S, Holz FG, Bird AC, Spaide RF (2008) Fundus autofluorescence imaging: review and perspectives. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa) 28(3):385–409. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0b013e318164a907CrossRef

19.

Sepah YJ, Akhtar A, Sadiq MA, Hafeez Y, Nasir H, Perez B, Mawji N, Dean DJ, Ferraz D, Nguyen QD (2014) Fundus autofluorescence imaging: fundamentals and clinical relevance. Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society 28(2):111–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjopt.2014.03.008CrossRef

20.

Müller PL, Pfau M, Mauschitz MM, Möller PT, Birtel J, Chang P, Gliem M, Schmitz-Valckenberg S, Fleckenstein M, Holz FG, Herrmann P (2018) Comparison of green versus blue fundus autofluorescence in ABCA4-related retinopathy. Translational vision science & technology 7(5):13. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.7.5.13CrossRef

21.

Shiihara H, Terasaki H, Sonoda S, Kakiuchi N, Shinohara Y, Tomita M, Sakamoto T (2018) Objective evaluation of size and shape of superficial foveal avascular zone in normal subjects by optical coherence tomography angiography. Sci Rep 8(1):10143. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28530-7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Battaglia Parodi M, Romano F, Cicinelli MV, Rabiolo A, Arrigo A, Pierro L, Iacono P, Bandello F (2018) Retinal vascular impairment in best vitelliform macular dystrophy assessed by means of optical coherence tomography angiography. Am J Ophthalmol 187:61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2017.12.013CrossRefPubMed

23.

Chiang TT, Keenan TD, Agrón E, Liao J, Klein B, Chew EY, Cukras CA, Wong WT (2020) Macular thickness in intermediate age-related macular degeneration is influenced by disease severity and subretinal drusenoid deposit presence. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 61(6):59. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.61.6.59CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Viera AJ, Garrett JM (2005) Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 37(5):360–363PubMed

25.

Lu Y, Wang JC, Zeng R, Katz R, Vavvas DG, Miller JW, Miller JB (2019) Quantitative comparison of microvascular metrics on three optical coherence tomography angiography devices in chorioretinal disease. Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, NZ) 13:2063-2069. doi:https://doi.org/10.2147/opth.S215322

26.

Falavarjani KG, Shenazandi H, Naseri D, Anvari P, Kazemi P, Aghamohammadi F, Alissmail F, Alemzadeh SA (2018) Foveal avascular zone and vessel density in healthy subjects: an optical coherence tomography angiography study. Journal of ophthalmic & vision research 13(3):260–265. https://doi.org/10.4103/jovr.jovr_173_17CrossRef

27.

Mo S, Krawitz B, Efstathiadis E, Geyman L, Weitz R, Chui TY, Carroll J, Dubra A, Rosen RB (2016) Imaging foveal microvasculature: optical coherence tomography angiography versus adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscope fluorescein angiography. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science 57 (9):Oct130-140. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.15-18932

28.

Wylegala A, Teper S, Dobrowolski D, Wylegala E (2016) Optical coherence angiography: a review. Medicine 95(41):e4907. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000004907CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Chin EK, Sedeek RW, Li Y, Beckett L, Redenbo E, Chandra K, Park SS (2012) Reproducibility of macular thickness measurement among five OCT instruments: effects of image resolution, image registration, and eye tracking. Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging : the official journal of the International Society for Imaging in the Eye 43(2):97–108. https://doi.org/10.3928/15428877-20111222-02CrossRef

30.

Heussen FM, Ouyang Y, McDonnell EC, Narala R, Ruiz-Garcia H, Walsh AC, Sadda SR (2012) Comparison of manually corrected retinal thickness measurements from multiple spectral-domain optical coherence tomography instruments. Br J Ophthalmol 96(3):380–385. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2010.201111CrossRefPubMed

31.

Major JC Jr, Wykoff CC, Mariani AF, Chen E, Croft DE, Brown DM (2014) Comparison of spectral-domain and time-domain optical coherence tomography in the detection of neovascular age-related macular degeneration activity. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa) 34(1):48–54. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0b013e3182965743CrossRef

32.

Smretschnig E, Krebs I, Moussa S, Ansari-Shahrezaei S, Ansari-Shahrezarei S, Binder S (2010) Cirrus OCT versus Spectralis OCT: differences in segmentation in fibrovascular pigment epithelial detachment. Graefe’s archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie 248. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-010-1415-9

33.

Willoughby AS, Chiu SJ, Silverman RK, Farsiu S, Bailey C, Wiley HE, Ferris FL 3rd, Jaffe GJ (2017) Platform-independent cirrus and Spectralis thickness measurements in eyes with diabetic macular edema using fully automated software. Translational vision science & technology 6(1):9. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.6.1.9CrossRef

34.

Spaide RF (2016) Volume-rendered optical coherence tomography of retinal vein occlusion pilot study. Am J Ophthalmol 165:133–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2016.02.037CrossRefPubMed

35.

Munk MR, Giannakaki-Zimmermann H, Berger L, Huf W, Ebneter A, Wolf S, Zinkernagel MS (2017) OCT-angiography: a qualitative and quantitative comparison of 4 OCT-A devices. PLoS One 12(5):e0177059. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177059CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Trachsler S, Baston AE, Menke M (2019) Intra- and interdevice deviation of optical coherence tomography angiography. Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde 236(4):551–554. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0747-5333CrossRefPubMed

37.

Anegondi N, Kshirsagar A, Mochi TB, Sinha Roy A (2018) Quantitative comparison of retinal vascular features in optical coherence tomography angiography images from three different devices. Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina 49(7):488–496. https://doi.org/10.3928/23258160-20180628-04CrossRef

38.

Campbell JP, Zhang M, Hwang TS, Bailey ST, Wilson DJ, Jia Y, Huang D (2017) Detailed vascular anatomy of the human retina by projection-resolved optical coherence tomography angiography. Sci Rep 7:42201. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep42201CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Cozzi M (2020) Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal imaging in characterising drusen. Ophthalmology retina 4(10):987–995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oret.2020.04.013CrossRefPubMed

40.

Sarwar S, Hassan M, Soliman MK, Halim MS, Sadiq MA, Afridi R, Agarwal A, Do DV, Nguyen QD, Sepah YJ (2018) Diurnal variation of choriocapillaris vessel flow density in normal subjects measured using optical coherence tomography angiography. Int J Retina Vitreous 4:37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40942-018-0140-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Munk MR, Kiss CG, Ekmekcioglu C, Huf W, Sulzbacher F, Gerendas B, Simader C, Schmidt-Erfurth U (2014) Influence of orthostasis and daytime on retinal thickness in uveitis-associated cystoid macular edema. Curr Eye Res 39(4):395–402. https://doi.org/10.3109/02713683.2013.845227CrossRefPubMed

42.

Alshareef RA, Dumpala S, Rapole S, Januwada M, Goud A, Peguda HK, Chhablani J (2016) Prevalence and distribution of segmentation errors in macular ganglion cell analysis of healthy eyes using cirrus HD-OCT. PLoS One 11(5):e0155319. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155319CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Kim JM, Kim KN, Kim WJ, Kim CS (2019) Influence of epiretinal membranes on the retinal nerve fiber layer thickness measured by spectral domain optical coherence tomography in glaucoma. Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO 33(5):422–429. https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2018.0105CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Comparison between two multimodal imaging platforms: Nidek Mirante and Heidelberg Spectralis
Authors: Kimberly Spooner
Long Phan
Mariano Cozzi
Thomas Hong
Giovanni Staurenghi
Eugenia Chu
Andrew A Chang
Publication date: 01-07-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword: Retinal Diseases
Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology / Issue 7/2021
Print ISSN: 0721-832X
Electronic ISSN: 1435-702X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-020-05050-7

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Comparison between two multimodal imaging platforms: Nidek Mirante and Heidelberg Spectralis

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2021

Comparative analysis of polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy with and without hemorrhage treated by anti-VEGF monotherapy

Macular microhole and foveal red spot syndrome: a critical review of the literature

Choroidal thickness profile and clinical outcomes in eyes with polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy

Gene expression profiles of pro-inflammatory mediators in the conjunctiva of patients with epiblepharon

Ring lymphoma: highly indicative ultrasound biomicroscopy findings of ciliary body lymphoma

Reliability and clinical applicability of a novel tear film imaging tool