Back to Journals » Clinical Ophthalmology » Volume 7

Comparison of ultra-widefield fluorescein angiography with the Heidelberg Spectralis® noncontact ultra-widefield module versus the Optos® Optomap®

Authors Witmer MT, Parlitsis G, Patel S, Kiss S

Received 17 December 2012

Accepted for publication 15 January 2013

Published 21 February 2013 Volume 2013:7 Pages 389—394

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S41731

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 2

Matthew T Witmer, George Parlitsis, Sarju Patel, Szilárd Kiss

Department of Ophthalmology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA

Purpose: To compare ultra-widefield fluorescein angiography imaging using the Optos® Optomap® and the Heidelberg Spectralis® noncontact ultra-widefield module.
Methods: Five patients (ten eyes) underwent ultra-widefield fluorescein angiography using the Optos® panoramic P200Tx imaging system and the noncontact ultra-widefield module in the Heidelberg Spectralis® HRA+OCT system. The images were obtained as a single, nonsteered shot centered on the macula. The area of imaged retina was outlined and quantified using Adobe® Photoshop® C5 software. The total area and area within each of four visualized quadrants was calculated and compared between the two imaging modalities. Three masked reviewers also evaluated each quadrant per eye (40 total quadrants) to determine which modality imaged the retinal vasculature most peripherally.
Results: Optos® imaging captured a total retinal area averaging 151,362 pixels, ranging from 116,998 to 205,833 pixels, while the area captured using the Heidelberg Spectralis® was 101,786 pixels, ranging from 73,424 to 116,319 (P = 0.0002). The average area per individual quadrant imaged by Optos® versus the Heidelberg Spectralis® superiorly was 32,373 vs 32,789 pixels, respectively (P = 0.91), inferiorly was 24,665 vs 26,117 pixels, respectively (P = 0.71), temporally was 47,948 vs 20,645 pixels, respectively (P = 0.0001), and nasally was 46,374 vs 22,234 pixels, respectively (P = 0.0001). The Heidelberg Spectralis® was able to image the superior and inferior retinal vasculature to a more distal point than was the Optos®, in nine of ten eyes (18 of 20 quadrants). The Optos® was able to image the nasal and temporal retinal vasculature to a more distal point than was the Heidelberg Spectralis®, in ten of ten eyes (20 of 20 quadrants).
Conclusion: The ultra-widefield fluorescein angiography obtained with the Optos® and Heidelberg Spectralis® ultra-widefield imaging systems are both excellent modalities that provide views of the peripheral retina. On a single nonsteered image, the Optos® Optomap® covered a significantly larger total retinal surface area, with greater image variability, than did the Heidelberg Spectralis® ultra-widefield module. The Optos® captured an appreciably wider view of the retina temporally and nasally, albeit with peripheral distortion, while the ultra-widefield Heidelberg Spectralis® module was able to image the superior and inferior retinal vasculature more peripherally. The clinical significance of these findings as well as the area imaged on steered montaged images remains to be determined.

Keywords: peripheral, retina, wide-angle, widefield, ultra-widefield

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]

 

Readers of this article also read:

Green synthesis of water-soluble nontoxic polymeric nanocomposites containing silver nanoparticles

Prozorova GF, Pozdnyakov AS, Kuznetsova NP, Korzhova SA, Emel’yanov AI, Ermakova TG, Fadeeva TV, Sosedova LM

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2014, 9:1883-1889

Published Date: 16 April 2014

Methacrylic-based nanogels for the pH-sensitive delivery of 5-Fluorouracil in the colon

Ashwanikumar N, Kumar NA, Nair SA, Kumar GS

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:5769-5779

Published Date: 15 November 2012

A novel preparation method for silicone oil nanoemulsions and its application for coating hair with silicone

Hu Z, Liao M, Chen Y, Cai Y, Meng L, Liu Y, Lv N, Liu Z, Yuan W

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:5719-5724

Published Date: 12 November 2012

Cross-linked acrylic hydrogel for the controlled delivery of hydrophobic drugs in cancer therapy

Deepa G, Thulasidasan AK, Anto RJ, Pillai JJ, Kumar GS

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:4077-4088

Published Date: 27 July 2012

Crystallization after intravitreal ganciclovir injection

Pitipol Choopong, Nattaporn Tesavibul, Nattawut Rodanant

Clinical Ophthalmology 2010, 4:709-711

Published Date: 14 July 2010