4.7 Article

Reproducibility and differences in area of foveal avascular zone measured by three different optical coherence tomographic angiography instruments

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-09255-5

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Japan Society of the Promotion of Science
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K10873, 17K16974, 15H04996, 17K11426] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was performed to compare the area of the foveal avascular zone (FAZ-area) obtained by three optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) instruments. This was a cross-sectional, non-interventional study of twenty-seven healthy right eyes. The superficial and deep FAZ-area was measured manually with three OCTA instruments: Triton (Topcon), RS3000 (Nidek), and CIRRUS (Zeiss). The intra-rater, inter-rater, and inter-instrument correlation coefficients (CC) were assessed. The intra-rater and inter-rater CC were significantly high for the superficial and deep FAZ-areas (P < 0.001). The inter-instrument CC (95% confidence interval) for the superficial FAZ-area was 0.920 (0.803-0.965) for Triton vs RS3000, 0.899 (0.575-0.965) for RS3000 vs CIRRUS, and was 0.963 (0.913-0.983) for CIRRUS vs Triton (P < 0.001). For the deep FAZ-area, the inter-instrument CC was 0.813 (0.633-0.910) for Triton vs RS3000, 0.694 (0.369-0.857) for RS3000 vs CIRRUS, and 0.679 (0.153-0.872) for CIRRUS vs Triton (P < 0.001). The superficial FAZ-area (mm(2)) was 0.264 +/- 0.071 with Triton, 0.278 +/- 0.072 with RS3000 and 0.257 +/- 0.066 with CIRRUS. For deep FAZ-area, it was 0.617 +/- 0.175 with Triton, 0.646 +/- 0.178 with RS3000 and 0.719 +/- 0.175 with CIRRUS. The FAZ-area from these instruments was clinically interchangeable. However, the absolute values of FAZ-area are significantly different among them. These differences must be considered in comparing the FAZ-areas from different OCTA instruments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available