Advertisement
Logo
Search for

Volume 147, Issue 2, Pages 267-275.e2 (February 2009)


View previous. 15 of 34 View next.

Prospective Comparison of Cirrus and Stratus Optical Coherence Tomography for Quantifying Retinal Thickness

Daniel F. Kiernana, Seenu M. HariprasadaCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Eric K. Chinc, Claire L. Kiernana, James Ragoa, William F. Mielerb

Accepted 13 August 2008. published online 17 October 2008.

Purpose

To compare Cirrus Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) with Stratus time-domain OCT for imaging retinal diseases and quantifying retinal thickness (RT) of all nine OCT zones, central macular thickness, and average macular thickness in eyes with and without macular edema.

Design

Prospective comparison between two OCT systems.

Methods

RT measurements were performed in 120 eyes of 60 patients suspected of having increased retina thickness using both Stratus and Cirrus OCT on the same day. Twenty-one eyes had both 512 × 128 and 200 × 200 Cirrus cube scans done.

Results

Data from 101 eyes (53 patients) were analyzed; 46 eyes (45.5%) had macular edema on clinical examination (Group 1), whereas 55 eyes (54.4%) had no clinical evidence of macular edema (Group 2). There was modest correlation between all thickness measurements in 909 zones and each group (range of Pearson correlation, 0.51 to 0.89) and average value was significantly greater when measured with Cirrus OCT for all eyes (mean difference, 43.2 μm; P < .0001). There were few measurement differences between different resolution Cirrus cube scans.

Conclusions

Cirrus OCT measures RT ∼43 μm greater than Stratus OCT, which is likely attributable to Cirrus OCT detection of the outer band of the retinal pigment epithelium vs Stratus OCT detection of the inner/outer segment photoreceptor junction. All zones showed a wide degree of variability in correlation. Both Cirrus cube scans provide similar data. Future studies comparing these systems might consider utilizing average macular thickness values, which reflect macular volume and may provide more consistent measurements.

a University of Chicago Hospitals, Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Chicago, Illinois

b University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois

c Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, Illinois

Corresponding Author InformationInquiries to Seenu M. Hariprasad, University of Chicago Hospitals, Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, 5841 S. Maryland Ave - MC 2114, Chicago, IL 60637

PII: S0002-9394(08)00661-2

doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2008.08.018


View previous. 15 of 34 View next.

Advertisement