Macular thickness in patients with choroidal neovascularization determined by rta and oct3: comparative results

ABSTRACT _AIMS_ The authors conducted a study to compare retinal thickness in patients with choroidal neovascularization (CNV) using optical coherence tomography (OCT) and retinal thickness

analyser (RTA). _METHODS_ In all, 11 eyes from 11 patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization were examined with OCT and RTA. _RESULTS_ Three patients could not be explored by RTA

due to lack of fixation and high myopia. The mean foveal thickness was 289.9±92.1 _μ_m with OCT and 207.7±60.8 _μ_m with RTA. The mean perifoveal thickness was 293.8±46.3 _μ_m and 200.8±61.3

_μ_m, respectively. The maximal perifoveal thickness measured by OCT was 335±104.0 _μ_m and 316±86.8 _μ_m by RTA. _CONCLUSION_ OCT and RTA are able to detect increases in retinal thickness

due to the presence of CNV and of fluid extravasation. They can be used in measuring retinal thickness in patients with CNV, although measures are not comparable between both systems.

SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS OUTER NUCLEAR LAYER RECOVERY AS A PREDICTOR OF VISUAL PROGNOSIS IN TYPE 1 CHOROIDAL NEOVASCULARIZATION OF NEOVASCULAR AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION

Article Open access 28 March 2023 STUDY OF RETINAL STRUCTURAL–FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIP IN CHOROIDEREMIA USING FUNDUS AUTOFLUORESCENCE AND OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY Article 16 February 2021

CORRELATION OF THE MACULAR MICROVASCULATURE TO THE AXIAL LENGTH IN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS WITH HIGH AXIAL REFRACTIVE ERRORS Article 02 September 2023 INTRODUCTION Choroidal neovascularization

(CNV) is a leading cause of loss of central vision in developed countries and may appear associated with different ocular disorders, the most common being age related macular degeneration

(ARMD) and high myopia, and also after ocular inflammation and angioid streaks.1 New advances in the treatment of CNV, such as photodynamic therapy and transpupillary thermotherapy, have

added new value to the determination of the activity of CNV through measurement of retinal thickness at the posterior pole.2, 3 Retinal thickness analyser (RTA) is a new device for the study

of the topography of the posterior pole of the eye. It projects 15-_μ_m-wide slits of green light of 534 nm, and records and digitizes light scattered back from the retina, and then

localizing both interfaces and measuring the distance between them. These two peaks are later detected by a computer and the difference between them is measured, using this measure to map

the posterior pole and calculate its thickness.4 Optical coherence tomography (OCT) provides high-resolution cross-sectional images of the retina permitting visualization of abnormalities in

the retinal structure. It projects an infrared light of 820 nm, which produces high-resolution (axial 10 _μ_m, transversal 20 _μ_m) interferometry cross-sectional images of the retina.5 In

the present study, we have used the RTA and the new version of OCT (OCT3) to study changes in the vitreoretinal and chorioretinal surface in eyes with subfoveal CNV. PATIENTS, MATERIALS AND

METHODS We have used the commercially available latest version of OCT (OCT3, Zeiss-Humphrey, San Leandro, CA, USA) and of RTA (Talia Technology Inc., Israel). In all, 11 patients with

macular CNV associated to ARMD were studied using RTA and OCT3 by experienced operators. Measures were taken consecutively on the same day in order to make them comparable. RTA was used to

perform scans of a 6000 × 6000 _μ_m2 area of the posterior pole centred in the fixation point (from 3000 _μ_m temporal to 3000 nasal to fovea, and from 3000 _μ_m superior to 3000 _μ_m

inferior to fovea), using the posterior pole and peripapillary thickness function. OCT3 performed 6 mm scans centred in the fovea (a circle 6000 _μ_m in diameter) using the fast macular scan

function. Fixation was controlled by the video image of the central retina. We have compared the OCT3 results of macular thickness in patients with CNV, with those of 40 healthy eyes (mean

age 47.7 years range 20–78 years; SD 18.2) from our database, which showed only mild refractive defects (−4 to +2 D). For RTA we have used published data of healthy eyes.6 Linear correlation

test was performed in order to compare the results by both procedures. The results were compared in terms of absolute and relative thickness measured, and limitations and advantages of the

procedures. RESULTS Two patients could not be studied with RTA because of lack of central fixation. One patient could not have RTA performed because of high myopia (−12 D). Five men and

three women were fully studied, one eye in each patient, five right, and three left eyes. The mean age of patients was 73.5±9.6 years (range 56–87 years). OCT provided good-quality images in

all cases; meanwhile, RTA images showed partial lack of information in two cases (25%). The mean foveal thickness (MFT) as measured with OCT was 289.9±92.1 _μ_m and 207.7±60.8 _μ_m as

measured with RTA (_r_=0.954 ). The mean perifoveal thickness (MPT) was 293.8±46.3 _μ_m according to OCT and 200.8±61.3 _μ_m according to RTA (_r_=0.920). The maximal perifoveal thickness

(MT) measured by OCT was 335±104.0 _μ_m and 316±86.8 _μ_m by RTA (_r_=0.707). Differences between both systems were more important in those patients with partial lack of information (Table

1, Figures 1, 2 and 3). Graphic topographic information was clear, intuitive, and self-explanatory in both instruments, although it was more marked with RTA (Figures 4a and b). OCT also

provided cross-sectional images of the retina, which helped in determining whether the increase in retinal thickness was due to the presence of CNV itself or to the presence of accompanying

fluid. Six patients showed active CNV expressed by the presence of fluid under the retina, and two showed lack of fluid by retinal thickening caused by the presence of CNV alone. _Case 1_ An

85-year-old lady with ARMD and good central fixation capability showed an MFT of 217.6 _μ_m with RTA and 302 _μ_m with OCT. Topographic images showed similar location of retinal thickening

in both cases, mainly nasal and inferior to fixation. Cross-sectional images by OCT, although, showed the presence of fluid under the retina proving the activity of CNV. _Case 2_ A

73-year-old man with ARMD showed an MFT of 226.3 _μ_m with RTA and 375 _μ_m with OCT. MPT was 224.2 _μ_m with RTA and 363.0 _μ_m with OCT. Central fixation was good. Topographic images

showed in both cases an almost doughnut-shaped elevation of the posterior pole corresponding to CNV. OCT images showed that retinal engorgement was caused by CNV with fluid accumulation

under the retina (Figure 4c). _Case 3_ A 77-year-old man with ARMD and poor central fixation showed an MFT of 181.6 _μ_m with RTA and 202 _μ_m with OCT. MPT was 182.3 _μ_m with RTA and 241.5

_μ_m with OCT. Owing to poor central fixation RTA measures skipped over 75% of posterior pole giving way to misleading values. Topographic images showed retinal moderate thickening in the

inferior nasal area with both techniques. OCT also indicated the presence of an atrophic CNV that produced no fluid around it, justifying the moderate thickening and poor fixation capability

(Figure 4d). DISCUSSION Retinal thickness in patients with CNV was increased in all measurements performed with both instruments. Thickness values were higher for OCT in absolute values but

not as much when compared to values in healthy individuals. For RTA, MFT was 136.5% over healthy individuals (152.1 _μ_m) and MPT was 114.7% (175.0 _μ_m). For OCT, they were 132.4% over

healthy individuals (219.8 _μ_m) and 108% (272.5 _μ_m), respectively. These results confirm those previously published on correlation between measures in both systems for healthy patients.7

Both instruments have previously proved to offer repetitive results concerning retinal pathology, especially for diabetic macular oedema.5, 6, 8 The differences found between both

instruments may be related to several factors. First, the area considered by each device when measuring foveal or perifoveal thickness is not the same. RTA MFT takes into account the

thickness of a circle of a 2000 _μ_m radius centred on the fixation point, whereas MPT is defined as the thickness in doughnut-shaped area around the fovea with an internal radius of 600

_μ_m and external radius of 2500 _μ_m.6 OCT defines MFT as that of a circular area centred in the fixation point with a 1000 _μ_m radius, and for MPT it considers a doughnut-shaped area

around the fovea with an internal radius of 500 _μ_m and external radius of 1500 _μ_m. Second, both systems take into account the distance between vitreoretinal and chorioretinal interfaces,

by different procedures, using different wavelengths. Infrared light used by OCT allows imaging of structures placed deep in the retina in spite of the presence of vascular tissue such as

CNV or haemorrhages. Measurements of retinal thickness are obtained by using computer image processing techniques in both techniques, although OCT also allows manual measuring at selected

points of the retina. RTA may show CNV by the elevation on the vitreoretinal surface.7 And third, lack of information related to certain areas of the posterior pole due to insufficient

capability of fixation in RTA can also lead to errors in the evaluation of mean values. The time required for image acquisition in RTA is variable and longer than required for OCT, since it

requires several steps with changes in fixation. RTA changes the location of the fixation point in order to measure different parts of the posterior pole, forcing the follow movement of the

eye. Thus, it demands a good fixation capability for an accurate measure, since data are discarded when fixation has not been good enough. On the other hand, OCT makes a multiple scan in

1.92 s, 3.5 or 6 mm in diameter, of six different meridians centred in a chosen point. Although both techniques require good fixation, the need for changing the fixation in order to change

the scanned field with RTA makes it more difficult for the patient with poor fixation capability. OCT can use either internal or external fixation, and the operator can move the scan area

and centre it in the fovea even if the patient is not able to follow the light. One would expect that the fixation would be less of a problem with the RTA since the patient only needs to fix

for about 0.3 s to acquire a scan. However, it is necessary for the patient to fix five times since five separate scans are taken that are then brought into registration by the software (or

manually, if necessary). By comparison, the OCT requires 1.92 s of continuous fixation to acquire the six scan lines. As five scans are acquired, the time from start to finish is longer for

RTA even though the total time the retina is being scanned by the instrument is less for RTA than for OCT. The quality of the data depends on the duration required for each scan, not the

total time the patient is seated at the instrument for measurement. The RTA has quality control procedures to reject data that are not satisfactory. This is not the case for OCT, which could

produce unsatisfactory data without notifying the operator. Yet the appearance of discordant measures will make the operator aware of this. Both systems allow visualization of the fundus

and manual centring of the data acquisition by the operator, if necessary. RTA samples a large area of posterior pole by slits separated by less than 200 _μ_m. This information is used to

calculate values in at least 1280 locations from which the topographic map is generated. In contrast, only six 6-mm lines of data are used to construct the topography with the OCT. However,

no data are available for locations between the radial lines of data acquisition, and these are separated by as much as 1.5 mm. The gaps in data are most prominent far from the fovea.

Accordingly, while the unmeasured locations allegedly have values determined by interpolation, in reality most of the values are essentially fabrication. Furthermore, the centre of the map

is constructed on the assumption that all the lines pass through the centre of the fovea. This assumption may not be met in some patients due to the difficulty in sustaining fixation for the

entire data acquisition time. Both systems are much limited by media opacities such as lens or posterior capsule opacities and by pupillary diameter, offering poor quality images that

cannot be measured either manually or by the software. In terms of this aspect we have found no difference between them. RTA has been used in the assessment of retinal thickness in diabetic

patients with and without diabetic retinopathy,6, 7, 8 and proved to be reproducible. Although RTA may be useful for measuring diffuse retinal thickening, such as that of diabetic

retinopathy, the more localized thickening and the poor fixation often found in patients with CNV may make it less sensitive in these patients. Both systems provide useful information in

measuring retinal thickness in patients with posterior pole pathology. The limitations that RTA imposes due to fixation needs may work at the same time as a ‘quality filter’, improving the

quality of the measures, and also reducing the number of patients who can benefit from this diagnostic procedure. Cross-sectional images provided OCT, which gave important information to

enable evaluation and to enable decision making in terms of patients with CNV, since they inform about the indepth composition of the thickening, especially the presence of fluid and the

shape, thickness, type, and size of CNV.9 In conclusion, OCT and RTA may provide important information in the study and follow-up of patients with CNV, although thickness measures cannot be

compared between both techniques or be considered in terms of absolute values since they are obtained by different means. The important relationship of RTA to fixation may make it less

suitable for patients with foveal damage. REFERENCES * Sickenberg M, Schmidt-Erfurth U, Miller JW, Pournaras CJ, Zografos L, Piguet B _et al_. A preliminary study of photodynamic therapy

using verteporfin for choroidal neovascularization in pathologic myopia, ocular histoplasmosis syndrome, angioid streaks and idiopathic causes. _Arch Ophthalmol_ 2000; 117: 327–336. Article

  Google Scholar  * Bressler NM . Treatment of age-related macular degeneration with photodynamic therapy (TAP) study group. Photodynamic therapy of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in

age-related macular degeneration with verteporfin Two-year results of 2 randomized clinical trials TAP report 2. _Arch Ophthalmol_ 2001; 119: 198–207. CAS  Google Scholar  * Newsom RSB,

McAllister JC, McHugh JDA . Transpupillary thermotherapy (TTT) for the treatment of choroidal neovascularisation. _Br J Ophthalmol_ 2001; 85: 173–178. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Zeimer

R, Shahidi M, Mori M, Zou S, Asrani S . A new method for rapid mapping of the retinal thickness at the posterior pole. _Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci_ 1996; 37: 1994–2001. CAS  PubMed  Google

Scholar  * Hee MR, Puliafito CA, Duker JS, Reichel E, Coker JG, Wilkins JR _et al_. Topography of diabetic macular edema with optical coherence tomography. _Ophthalmology_ 1998; 105:

360–370. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Konno S, Akiba J, Yoshida A . Retinal thickness measurements with optical coherence tomography and the scanning retinal thickness analyzer. _Retina_

2001; 21: 57–61. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Fritsche P, van der Heijde R, Suttorp-Schulten MS, Polak BC . Retinal thickness analysis (RTA). An objective method to assess and quantify

the retinal thickness in healthy controls and in diabetics without diabetic retinopathy. _Retina_ 2002; 22: 768–771. Article  Google Scholar  * Goebel W, Kretzchmar-Gross T . Retinal

thickness in diabetic retinopathy. _A study using optical coherence tomography (OCT). Retina_ 2002; 22: 759–767. PubMed  Google Scholar  * Rogers AH, Martidis A, Greenberg PB, Puliafito CA .

Optical coherence tomography findings following photodynamic therapy of choroidal neovascularization. _Am J Ophthalmol_ 2002; 134: 566–576. Article  Google Scholar  Download references

AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Instituto Oftalmológico, de Alicante Vitreo-Retinal Unit, Alicante, Spain J A Montero & J M Ruiz-Moreno * Department of Ophthalmology,

Miguel Hernández University, School of Medicine, Alicante, Spain J M Ruiz-Moreno Authors * J A Montero View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar *

J M Ruiz-Moreno View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to J A Montero. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and

permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Montero, J., Ruiz-Moreno, J. Macular thickness in patients with choroidal neovascularization determined by RTA and OCT3: Comparative results.

_Eye_ 19, 72–76 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.eye.6701400 Download citation * Received: 01 October 2003 * Accepted: 20 October 2003 * Published: 23 April 2004 * Issue Date: 01 January

2005 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.eye.6701400 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link

is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative KEYWORDS * retinal thickness analyser * optical coherence

tomography * choroidal neovascularization