Article

Artifacts in automatic retinal segmentation using different optical coherence tomography instruments.

G. B. Bietti Eye Foundation, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.) (Impact Factor: 2.93). 04/2010; 30(4):607-16. DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181c2e09d
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate artifact errors in automatic inner and outer retinal boundary detection produced by different time-domain and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) instruments.
Normal and pathologic eyes were imaged by six different OCT devices. For each instrument, standard analysis protocols were used for macular thickness evaluation. Error frequencies, defined as the percentage of examinations affected by at least one error in retinal segmentation (EF-exam) and the percentage of total errors per total B-scans, were assessed for each instrument. In addition, inner versus outer retinal boundary delimitation and central (1,000 microm) versus noncentral location of errors were studied.
The study population of the EF-exam for all instruments was 25.8%. The EF-exam of normal eyes was 6.9%, whereas in all pathologic eyes, it was 32.7% (P < 0.0001). The EF-exam was highest in eyes with macular holes, 83.3%, followed by epiretinal membrane with cystoid macular edema, 66.6%, and neovascular age-related macular degeneration, 50.3%. The different OCT instruments produced different EF-exam values (P < 0.0001). The Zeiss Stratus produced the highest percentage of total errors per total B-scans compared with the other OCT systems, and this was statistically significant for all devices (P < or = 0.005) except the Optovue RTvue-100 (P = 0.165).
Spectral-domain OCT instruments reduce, but do not eliminate, errors in retinal segmentation. Moreover, accurate segmentation is lower in pathologic eyes compared with normal eyes for all instruments. The important differences in EF among the instruments studied are probably attributable to analysis algorithms used to set retinal inner and outer boundaries. Manual adjustments of retinal segmentations could reduce errors, but it will be important to evaluate interoperator variability.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
106 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: IMPORTANCE Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) has an integral role in the diagnosis and treatment of glaucoma. Understanding the types of artifacts commonly seen in the imaging of patients being evaluated for glaucoma will help physicians better implement these data in the care of patients. OBJECTIVES To determine the frequency and distribution of SD-OCT imaging artifacts in patients being evaluated for glaucoma and to provide examples of common artifacts. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A retrospective cross-sectional study design was used to examine SD-OCT images (using Spectralis SD-OCT) of 277 consecutive patients who had a diagnosis of glaucoma of any stage or had suspected glaucoma. Retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) and macular thickness scans were included. For each scan, the final printout and the source images that generated the final printout were examined. If present, artifacts were classified as evident on the final printout or not and were categorized as to the primary source of the artifact (eg, ocular pathologic features or technician errors). Examples of common artifacts are provided. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The presence of imaging artifacts. RESULTS In 277 consecutive patients, 131 macular thickness scans were obtained, and 277 RNFL scans were obtained. Of the macular thickness scans, 37 (28.2%; 95% CI, 20.8%-36.1%) had imaging artifacts. Six of these artifacts were not obvious on the final printout. Of the RNFL scans, 55 (19.9%; 95% CI, 15.2%-24.6%) contained artifacts. Seven of these artifacts were not evident on the final printout. The most common cause of artifacts for macular thickness and RNFL scans was ocular pathologic features, primarily the presence of an epiretinal membrane. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE It is likely that SD-OCT-related imaging artifacts occur in 15.2% to 36.1% of scans obtained in patients being evaluated for glaucoma. Some of these artifacts may not be evident on the final printout. Physicians should be alert to the possibility of artifacts, particularly in patients with ocular pathologic features such as an epiretinal membrane.
    Jama Ophthalmology 02/2014; 132(4). DOI:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.7974 · 3.83 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate agreement between fluorescein angiography (FA) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) results for diagnosis of macular edema in patients with uveitis. DESIGN: Multicenter cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred seventy-nine eyes with uveitis from 255 patients. METHODS: The macular status of dilated eyes with intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis, or panuveitis was assessed via Stratus-3 OCT and FA. To evaluate agreement between the diagnostic approaches, κ statistics were used. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Macular thickening (MT; center point thickness, ≥240 μm per reading center grading of OCT images) and macular leakage (ML; central subfield fluorescein leakage, ≥0.44 disc areas per reading center grading of FA images), and agreement between these outcomes in diagnosing macular edema. RESULTS: Optical coherence tomography (90.4%) more frequently returned usable information regarding macular edema than FA (77%) or biomicroscopy (76%). Agreement in diagnosis of MT and ML (κ = 0.44) was moderate. Macular leakage was present in 40% of cases free of MT, whereas MT was present in 34% of cases without ML. Biomicroscopic evaluation for macular edema failed to detect 40% and 45% of cases of MT and ML, respectively, and diagnosed 17% and 17% of cases with macular edema that did not have MT or ML, respectively; these results may underestimate biomicroscopic errors (ophthalmologists were not explicitly masked to OCT and FA results). Among eyes free of ML, phakic eyes without cataract rarely (4%) had MT. No factors were found that effectively ruled out ML when MT was absent. CONCLUSIONS: Optical coherence tomography and FA offered only moderate agreement regarding macular edema status in uveitis cases, probably because what they measure (MT and ML) are related but nonidentical macular pathologic characteristics. Given its lower cost, greater safety, and greater likelihood of obtaining usable information, OCT may be the best initial test for evaluation of suspected macular edema. However, given that ML cannot be ruled out if MT is absent and vice versa, obtaining the second test after negative results on the first seems justified when detection of ML or MT would alter management. Given that biomicroscopic evaluation for macular edema erred frequently, ancillary testing for macular edema seems indicated when knowledge of ML or MT status would affect management. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.
    Ophthalmology 09/2013; 120(9):1852-9. DOI:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.01.069 · 6.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate the influence of scan distance on retinal boundary detection errors (RBDEs) and retinal thickness measurements by spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). 10 eyes of healthy subjects, 10 eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) and 10 eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) were examined with RTVue SD-OCT. The MM5 protocol was used in two consecutive sessions to scan the macula. For the first session, the device was set 3.5 cm from the eye in order to obtain detectable signal with low fundus image quality (suboptimal setting) while in the second session a distance of 2.5 cm was set with a good quality fundus image. The signal strength (SSI) value was recorded. The score for retinal boundary detection errors (RBDE) was calculated for ten scans of each examination. RBDE scores were recorded for the whole scan and also for the peripheral 1.0 mm region. RBDE scores, regional retinal thickness values and SSI values between the two sessions were compared. The correlation between SSI and the number of RBDEs was also examined. The SSI was significantly lower with suboptimal settings compared to optimal settings (63.9+/-12.0 vs. 68.3+/-12.2, respectively, p=0.001) and the number of RBDEs was significantly higher with suboptimal settings in the "all-eyes" group along with the group of healthy subjects and eyes with DME (9.1+/-6.5 vs. 6.8+/-6.3, p=0.007; 4.4+/-2.6 vs. 2.5+/-1.6, p=0.035 and 9.7+/-3.3 vs. 5.1+/-3.7, p=0.008, respectively). For these groups, significant negative correlation was found between the SSI and the number of RBDEs. In the AMD group, the number of RBDEs was markedly higher compared to the other groups and there was no difference in RBDEs between optimal and suboptimal settings with the errors being independent of the SSI. There were significantly less peripheral RBDEs with optimal settings in the "all-eyes" group and the DME subgroup (2.7+/-2.6 vs. 4.2+/-2.8, p=0.001 and 1.4+/-1.7 vs. 4.1+/-2.2, p=0.007, respectively). Retinal thickness in the two settings was significantly different only in the outer-superior region in DME. Optimal distance settings improve SD-OCT SSI with a decrease in RBDEs while retinal thickness measurements are independent of scanning distance.
    BMC Ophthalmology 11/2014; 14(1):148. DOI:10.1186/1471-2415-14-148 · 1.08 Impact Factor