Comparison of optic nerve head topography in normal eyes using confocal laser scanning tomograph and retinal thickness analyzer
Primerjava konfokalnega skenirajočega laserskega tomografa in analizatorja debeline mrežnice pri analizi topografije papile vidnega živca pri normalnih očeh

english

2005

volume 74, issue 10

Anatomy And Histology   diagnostika   Microscopy, Confocal   Optic Nerve   Retina

Slovensko zdravniško društvo
(Obvezni izvod spletne publikacije)

Background. To compare optic nerve head topography measurements by Heidelberg retina tomograph I (HRT) and retinal thickness analyser (RTA) and thereby to determine clinical agreement between the devices. To investigate reproducibility of measurements for HRT and RTA. To obtain our own HRT and RTAdatabase for comparison of healthy and glaucomatous eyes. Methods. The study included 100 normal eyes of 50 white adults of both sexes (mean age of 55.5 (SD 9.5) years). Ophthalmologic examination, fundus phatography, HRT and RTA examinations were performed. To determine reproducibility 10 volunteers repeated the examination after a week. For HRT and RTA measurements mean (SD),median, 5th and 95th percentile, range and coefficient of variation were calculated. Differences in topographic parameters between HRT and RTA were tested for significance. Clinical agreement was assessed with "limits of agreement" and reproducibility expressed by repeatability coefficient and itraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results. Significant differences (p<0.05) in topographic parameters obtained by HRT and RTA were observed for all parameters except for rim area (p=0.051)and height variation contour (p=0.054). Limits of agreement between HRT and RTA were too wide and clinically important. Repeatability coefficient was good (<0.10) for all HRT parameters except for RNFL cross-sectional area (0.28). Repeatability coefficient was >0.10 for RTA parameters cup area (0.15), rim area (0.19), maximum cup depth (0.13), height variation contour (0.11) and RNFL cross-sectional area (0.14). ICC was good (>90%) for all parameters, except for mean RNFL thickness (89%) for HRT and height variation contour (84%) for RTA. Conclusions. The two devices cannot be used interchangeably. (Abstract truncated at 2000 characters)

10.04.2014