A Comparison of Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness Measured Using Five Different Optical Coherence Tomography Devices

Youn Gon Lee; Young Hoon Hwang

doi:10.3341/jkos.2018.59.3.261

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.59(3) > 1010871

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Lee and Hwang: A Comparison of Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness Measured Using Five Different Optical Coherence Tomography Devices

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2018;59(3):261-267.

Published online: 7 September 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2018.59.3.261

A Comparison of Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness Measured Using Five Different Optical Coherence Tomography Devices

Youn Gon Lee, MD, Young Hoon Hwang, MD

Myung-Gok Eye Research Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Kim's Eye Hospital, Konyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Young Hoon Hwang, MD Department of Ophthalmology, Kim's Eye Hospital, #136 Yeongsin-ro, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul 07301, Korea Tel: 82-2-2639-7777, Fax: 82-2-2633-3976, E-mail: brainh@hanmail.net

Received 19 October 2017 Revised 30 November 2017 Accepted 13 February 2018

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To compare circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thicknesses as measured using five different optical coherence tomography (OCT) devices.

Methods

RNFL thickness was measured in 32 healthy eyes of 32 subjects using a Cirrus HD-OCT (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA, USA), Spectralis OCT (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany), Topcon DRI OCT (Topcon, Tokyo, Japan), RS-3000 Advance OCT (NIDEK, Aichi, Japan), and RTVue-100 (Optovue, Fremont, CA, USA). Global and quadrant (superior, nasal, inferior, and temporal) RNFL thicknesses were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance, and the agreement among devices was determined using Bland-Altman analyses.

Results

The global RNFL thickness was greatest when measured using the Topcon DRI OCT, with a mean value of 107.5 μm. The mean global RNFL thicknesses measured using the RTVue-100, RS-3000 Advance OCT, and Spectralis OCT were 104.9 ± 8.4, 104.4 ± 9.4, 102.5 ± 8.9 jm, respectively. The Cirrus HD-OCT presented the thinnest RNFL measurement, with a mean value of 97.7 ± 8.7 jm (p < 0.01). A similar pattern was found for the quadrant RNFL thicknesses (p < 0.01). Differences in the global RNFL thicknesses among the devices ranged from 0.5 to 9.9 jm. The limits of agreement of the global RNFL thicknesses evaluated by Bland-Altman analyses ranged from 6.8 to 19.6 jm.

Conclusions

RNFL thicknesses measured using five different OCT devices were not interchangeable and there was a wide limit of agreement. When interpreting RNFL thickness values determined by different devices, caution is advised.

Keywords: Glaucoma, Optical coherence tomography, Retinal nerve fiber layer

REFERENCES

1). Leung CK, Cheung CY, Weinreb RN, et al. Retinal nerve fiber layer imaging with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography: a variability and diagnostic performance study. Ophthalmology. 2009; 116:1257–63. 1263.e1-2

2). Matlach J, Wagner M, Malzahn U, Gobel W. Repeatability of peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer and inner retinal thickness among two spectral domain optical coherence tomography devices. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014; 55:6536–46.

3). Carpineto P, Nubile M, Agnifili L, et al. Reproducibility and repeatability of Cirrus(TM) HD-OCT peripapillary retinal nerve fibre layer thickness measurements in young normal subjects. Ophthalmologica. 2012; 227:139–45.

4). Kim NR, Lee ES, Seong GJ, et al. Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography for detection of localized retinal nerve fiber layer defects in patients with open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010; 128:1121–8.

5). Hwang YH, Kim YY, Kim HK, Sohn YH. Ability of cirrus high-definition spectral-domain optical coherence tomography clock-hour, deviation, and thickness maps in detecting photographic retinal nerve fiber layer abnormalities. Ophthalmology. 2013; 120:1380–7.

6). Han KE, Jun RM, Choi KR. Comparison of RNFL thickness measured by two different kind of OCT in NTG Patients. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2009; 50:1853–9.

7). Kim BK, Lee DW, Ahn M, Cho NC. Comparison of time domain OCT and spectrum domain OCT for retinal nerve fiber layer assessment. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2009; 50:1539–47.

8). Ha A, Lee SH, Lee EJ, Kim TW. Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness measurement comparison using spectral domain and swept source optical coherence tomography. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2016; 30:140–7.

9). Shin HJ, Cho BJ. Comparison of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness between Stratus and Spectralis OCT. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2011; 25:166–73.

10). Pierro L, Gagliardi M, Iuliano L, et al. Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness reproducibility using seven different OCT instruments. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53:5912–20.

11). Leite MT, Rao HL, Weinreb RN, et al. Agreement among spectral-domain optical coherence tomography instruments for assessing retinal nerve fiber layer thickness. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011; 151:85–92.e1.

12). Kanamori A, Nakamura M, Tomioka M, et al. Agreement among three types of spectral-domain optical coherent tomography instruments in measuring parapapillary retinal nerve fibre layer thickness. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012; 96:832–7.

Figure 1.

Bland-Altman plots for the average retinal nerve fiber layer thickness measurement using five different optical coherence tomography (OCT) devices. Upper and lower dashed lines indicate limit of agreement and middle dashed lines present mean difference value. (A) Cirrus HD-OCT versus Topcon DRI OCT. (B) Cirrus HD-OCT versus RS-3000 Advance OCT. (C) Cirrus HD-OCT versus Spectralis OCT. (D) Cirrus HD-OCT versus RTVue-100. (E) Topcon DRI OCT versus RS-3000 Advance OCT. (F) Topcon DRI OCT versus Spectralis OCT. (G) Topcon DRI OCT versus RTVue-100. (H) RS-3000 Advance OCT versus Spectralis OCT. (I) RS-3000 Advance OCT versus RTVue-100. (J) Spectralis OCT versus RTVue-100.

Table 1.

Comparison of circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness (pm) as measured by different optical coherence tomography (OCT) devices

	Cirrus HD-OCT	Topcon DRI OCT	RS-3000 Advance OCT	Spectralis OCT	RTVue-100	p-value*
Average	97.7 ± 8.7	107.5 ± 9.0	104.4 ± 9.4	102.5 ± 8.9	104.9 ± 8.4	<0.01
	(82–113)	(91–127)	(91–121)	(87–120)	(88–120)
Quadrant
Superior	121.3 ± 17.5	134.1 ± 15.4	133.8 ± 17.0	128.5 ± 15.0	129.3 ± 13.4	<0.01
	(86–167)	(96–169)	(93–174)	(95–159)	(92–153)
Nasal	66.6 ± 8.5	68.6 ± 14.7	64.7 ± 13.2	65.5 ± 14.2	74.5 ± 10.9	<0.01
	(52–87)	(35–93)	(42–87)	(40–95)	(51–95)
Inferior	125.4 ± 14.9	140.3 ± 15.4	136.1 ± 15.4	133.1 ± 14.9	130.7 ± 11.8	<0.01
	(97–158)	(116–175)	(111–172)	(106–169)	(106–157)
Temporal	77.4 ± 15.1	86.9 ± 16.7	83.1 ± 14.1	82.8 ± 13.8	81.6 ± 10.5	<0.01
	(47–112)	(53–139)	(53–119)	(54–109)	(58–104)

Values are presented as mean ± SD (range) unless otherwise indicated.

^* Repeated measures analysis of variance.

Table 2.

Agreement of average retinal nerve fiber layer thickness (pm) as measured by different optical coherence tomography (OCT) devices

Device		Difference	LoA	Range	R* (p-value)
Cirrus HD-OCT	Topcon DRI OCT	−9.9	−1.9/−17.9	16	−0.08 (0.678)
	RS-3000 Advance OCT	−6.8	3/−16.6	19.6	−0.14 (0.436)
	Spectralis OCT	−4.8	3.2/−12.8	16	−0.06 (0.764)
	RTVue-100	−7.2	1.6/−16	17.6	0.08 (0.668)
Topcon DRI OCT	RS-3000 Advance OCT	3.1	9.7/−3.5	13.2	−0.12 (0.522)
	Spectralis OCT	5.1	8.5/1.7	6.8	0.05 (0.787)
	RTVue-100	2.7	8.5/−3.1	11.6	0.23 (0.216)
RS-3000 Advance OCT	Spectralis OCT	2	8.8/−4.8	13.6	0.14 (0.445)
	RTVue-100	−0.5	6.7/−7.7	14.4	0.28 (0.116)
Spectralis OCT	RTVue-100	−2.4	3.4/−8.2	11.6	0.19 (0.292)

LoA = limit of agreement (mean difference ± 2 standard deviation of difference).

^* Pearson's correlation coefficient between mean and difference.

TOOLS

Similar articles