Comparison of Fundus Autofluorescence Between Fundus Camera (Topcon) and Confocal Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscope (HRA) in Various Pathologies
Détails
ID Serval
serval:BIB_E7F41B2BF00A
Type
Actes de conférence (partie): contribution originale à la littérature scientifique, publiée à l'occasion de conférences scientifiques, dans un ouvrage de compte-rendu (proceedings), ou dans l'édition spéciale d'un journal reconnu (conference proceedings).
Sous-type
Abstract (résumé de présentation): article court qui reprend les éléments essentiels présentés à l'occasion d'une conférence scientifique dans un poster ou lors d'une intervention orale.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Titre
Comparison of Fundus Autofluorescence Between Fundus Camera (Topcon) and Confocal Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscope (HRA) in Various Pathologies
Titre de la conférence
Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science
Organisation
ARVO E-Abstract 4369/A202
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
2010
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
51
Langue
anglais
Résumé
Purpose:
To investigate the differences between the Fundus Camera (Topcon TRC-50X) and Confocal Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscope (Heidelberg retina angiogram (HRA)) on the fundus autofluorescence (FAF) imaging (resolution and FAF characteristics).
Methods:
Eighty nine eyes of 46 patients with various retinal diseases underwent FAF imaging with HRA (488nm exciter / 500nm barrier filter) before fluorescein angiography (FFA) and Topcon Fundus Camera (580nm exciter / 695nm barrier filter) before and after FFA.
The quality of the FAF images was estimated, compared for their resolution and analysed for the influence of fixation stability and cataracts. Hypo- and hyper-FAF behaviour was analysed for the healthy disc, healthy fovea, and a variety of pathological features.
Results:
HRA images were found to be of superior quality in 18 eyes, while Topcon images were estimated superior in 21 eyes. No difference was found in 50 eyes. Both poor fixation (p=0.009) and more advanced cataract (p=0.013) were found to strongly increase the likelihood of better image quality by Topcon. Images acquired by Topcon before and after FFA were identical (100%).
The healthy disc was usually dark on HRA (71%), but showed mild autofluorescence on Topcon (88%). The healthy fovea showed in 100% Hypo-FAF on HRA, while Topcon showed in 52% Iso-FAF, in 43% mild Hypo-FAF, and in 5% Hypo-FAF as on HRA.
No difference of FAF was found for geographic atrophy, pigment changes, and drusen, although Topcon images were often more detailed. Hyper-FAF due to exudation showed better on HRA. Pigment epithelium detachment showed identical FAF behaviour on the border, but reduced FAF with Topcon in the center. Cystic edema was visible only on HRA in a petaloid pattern. Hard exsudates caused Hypo-FAF only on HRA, hardly visible on Topcon. Blocage phenomenon by blood however was identical.
Conclusions:
The filter set of Topcon and the single image acquisition appear to be an advantage for patients with cataract or poor fixation. Preceding FFA does not alter the Topcon FAF image. Regarding the FAF behaviour, there are differences between the two systems which need to be taken into account when interpreting the images.
To investigate the differences between the Fundus Camera (Topcon TRC-50X) and Confocal Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscope (Heidelberg retina angiogram (HRA)) on the fundus autofluorescence (FAF) imaging (resolution and FAF characteristics).
Methods:
Eighty nine eyes of 46 patients with various retinal diseases underwent FAF imaging with HRA (488nm exciter / 500nm barrier filter) before fluorescein angiography (FFA) and Topcon Fundus Camera (580nm exciter / 695nm barrier filter) before and after FFA.
The quality of the FAF images was estimated, compared for their resolution and analysed for the influence of fixation stability and cataracts. Hypo- and hyper-FAF behaviour was analysed for the healthy disc, healthy fovea, and a variety of pathological features.
Results:
HRA images were found to be of superior quality in 18 eyes, while Topcon images were estimated superior in 21 eyes. No difference was found in 50 eyes. Both poor fixation (p=0.009) and more advanced cataract (p=0.013) were found to strongly increase the likelihood of better image quality by Topcon. Images acquired by Topcon before and after FFA were identical (100%).
The healthy disc was usually dark on HRA (71%), but showed mild autofluorescence on Topcon (88%). The healthy fovea showed in 100% Hypo-FAF on HRA, while Topcon showed in 52% Iso-FAF, in 43% mild Hypo-FAF, and in 5% Hypo-FAF as on HRA.
No difference of FAF was found for geographic atrophy, pigment changes, and drusen, although Topcon images were often more detailed. Hyper-FAF due to exudation showed better on HRA. Pigment epithelium detachment showed identical FAF behaviour on the border, but reduced FAF with Topcon in the center. Cystic edema was visible only on HRA in a petaloid pattern. Hard exsudates caused Hypo-FAF only on HRA, hardly visible on Topcon. Blocage phenomenon by blood however was identical.
Conclusions:
The filter set of Topcon and the single image acquisition appear to be an advantage for patients with cataract or poor fixation. Preceding FFA does not alter the Topcon FAF image. Regarding the FAF behaviour, there are differences between the two systems which need to be taken into account when interpreting the images.
Création de la notice
23/12/2010 10:09
Dernière modification de la notice
20/08/2019 16:10
Données d'usage
