J Korean Ophthalmol Soc.  2018 Mar;59(3):261-267. 10.3341/jkos.2018.59.3.261.

A Comparison of Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness Measured Using Five Different Optical Coherence Tomography Devices

• Lee YG
• Hwang YH

• KMID: 2406961
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2018.59.3.261

Abstract

PURPOSE
To compare circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thicknesses as measured using five different optical coherence tomography (OCT) devices.
METHODS
RNFL thickness was measured in 32 healthy eyes of 32 subjects using a Cirrus HD-OCT (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA, USA), Spectralis OCT (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany), Topcon DRI OCT (Topcon, Tokyo, Japan), RS-3000 Advance OCT (NIDEK, Aichi, Japan), and RTVue-100 (Optovue, Fremont, CA, USA). Global and quadrant (superior, nasal, inferior, and temporal) RNFL thicknesses were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance, and the agreement among devices was determined using Bland-Altman analyses.
RESULTS
The global RNFL thickness was greatest when measured using the Topcon DRI OCT, with a mean value of 107.5 µm. The mean global RNFL thicknesses measured using the RTVue-100, RS-3000 Advance OCT, and Spectralis OCT were 104.9 ± 8.4, 104.4 ± 9.4, 102.5 ± 8.9 µm, respectively. The Cirrus HD-OCT presented the thinnest RNFL measurement, with a mean value of 97.7 ± 8.7 µm (p < 0.01). A similar pattern was found for the quadrant RNFL thicknesses (p < 0.01). Differences in the global RNFL thicknesses among the devices ranged from 0.5 to 9.9 µm. The limits of agreement of the global RNFL thicknesses evaluated by Bland-Altman analyses ranged from 6.8 to 19.6 µm.
CONCLUSIONS
RNFL thicknesses measured using five different OCT devices were not interchangeable and there was a wide limit of agreement. When interpreting RNFL thickness values determined by different devices, caution is advised.

Keyword

Glaucoma; Optical coherence tomography; Retinal nerve fiber layer

MeSH Terms

Glaucoma
Nerve Fibers*
Retinaldehyde*
Tomography, Optical Coherence*
Retinaldehyde

Figure

• 

  Figure 1. Bland-Altman plots for the average retinal nerve fiber layer thickness measurement using five different optical coherence tomography (OCT) devices. Upper and lower dashed lines indicate limit of agreement and middle dashed lines present mean difference value. (A) Cirrus HD-OCT versus Topcon DRI OCT. (B) Cirrus HD-OCT versus RS-3000 Advance OCT. (C) Cirrus HD-OCT versus Spectralis OCT. (D) Cirrus HD-OCT versus RTVue-100. (E) Topcon DRI OCT versus RS-3000 Advance OCT. (F) Topcon DRI OCT versus Spectralis OCT. (G) Topcon DRI OCT versus RTVue-100. (H) RS-3000 Advance OCT versus Spectralis OCT. (I) RS-3000 Advance OCT versus RTVue-100. (J) Spectralis OCT versus RTVue-100.

Reference

1). Leung CK, Cheung CY, Weinreb RN, et al. Retinal nerve fiber layer imaging with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography: a variability and diagnostic performance study. Ophthalmology. 2009; 116:1257–63. 1263.e1-2

2). Matlach J, Wagner M, Malzahn U, Gobel W. Repeatability of peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer and inner retinal thickness among two spectral domain optical coherence tomography devices. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014; 55:6536–46.

3). Carpineto P, Nubile M, Agnifili L, et al. Reproducibility and repeatability of Cirrus(TM) HD-OCT peripapillary retinal nerve fibre layer thickness measurements in young normal subjects. Ophthalmologica. 2012; 227:139–45.

4). Kim NR, Lee ES, Seong GJ, et al. Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography for detection of localized retinal nerve fiber layer defects in patients with open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010; 128:1121–8.

5). Hwang YH, Kim YY, Kim HK, Sohn YH. Ability of cirrus high-definition spectral-domain optical coherence tomography clock-hour, deviation, and thickness maps in detecting photographic retinal nerve fiber layer abnormalities. Ophthalmology. 2013; 120:1380–7.

6). Han KE, Jun RM, Choi KR. Comparison of RNFL thickness measured by two different kind of OCT in NTG Patients. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2009; 50:1853–9.

7). Kim BK, Lee DW, Ahn M, Cho NC. Comparison of time domain OCT and spectrum domain OCT for retinal nerve fiber layer assessment. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2009; 50:1539–47.

8). Ha A, Lee SH, Lee EJ, Kim TW. Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness measurement comparison using spectral domain and swept source optical coherence tomography. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2016; 30:140–7.

9). Shin HJ, Cho BJ. Comparison of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness between Stratus and Spectralis OCT. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2011; 25:166–73.

10). Pierro L, Gagliardi M, Iuliano L, et al. Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness reproducibility using seven different OCT instruments. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53:5912–20.

11). Leite MT, Rao HL, Weinreb RN, et al. Agreement among spectral-domain optical coherence tomography instruments for assessing retinal nerve fiber layer thickness. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011; 151:85–92.e1.

12). Kanamori A, Nakamura M, Tomioka M, et al. Agreement among three types of spectral-domain optical coherent tomography instruments in measuring parapapillary retinal nerve fibre layer thickness. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012; 96:832–7.