SpringerLink
Log in

A quantitative comparison of four optical coherence tomography angiography devices in healthy eyes

  • Retinal Disorders
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A) is a novel imaging modality for the diagnosis of chorioretinal diseases. A number of FDA-approved OCT-A devices are currently commercially available, each with unique algorithms and scanning protocols. Although several published studies have compared different combinations of OCT-A machines, there is a lack of agreement on the consistency of measurements across OCT-A devices. Therefore, we conducted a prospective quantitative comparison of four available OCT-A platforms.

Methods

Subjects were scanned on four devices: Optovue RTVue-XR, Heidelberg Spectralis OCT2 module, Zeiss Plex Elite 9000 Swept-Source OCT, and Topcon DRI-OCT Triton Swept-Source OCT. 3 mm × 3 mm images were utilized for analysis. Foveal avascular zone (FAZ) area was separately and independently measured by two investigators. Fractal dimension (FD), superficial capillary plexus (SCP), and deep capillary plexus (DCP) vessel densities (VD) were calculated from binarized images using the Fiji image processing software. SCP and DCP VD were further calculated after images were skeletonized. Repeated measures ANOVA, post hoc tests, and interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were performed for statistical analysis.

Results

Sixteen healthy eyes from sixteen patients were scanned on the four devices. Images of five eyes from the Triton device were excluded due to poor image quality; thus, the authors performed two sets comparisons, one with and one without the Triton machine. FAZ area showed no significant difference across devices with an ICC of > 95%. However, there were statistically significant differences for SCP and DCP VD both before and after skeletonization (p < 0.05). Fractal analysis revealed no significant difference of FD at the SCP; however, a statistically significant difference was found for FD at the DCP layer (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The results showed that FAZ measurements were consistent across all four devices, while significant differences in VD and FD measurements existed. Therefore, we suggest that for both clinical follow-up and research studies, FAZ area is a useful parameter for OCT-A image analysis when measurements are made on different machines, while VD and FD show significant variability when measured across devices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Khalid H, Schwartz R, Nicholson L et al (2020) Widefield optical coherence tomography angiography for early detection and objective evaluation of proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Br J Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-315365

  2. Cui Y, Zhu Y, Wang JC et al (2019) Imaging artifacts and segmentation errors with wide-field swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography in diabetic retinopathy. Transl Vis Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.8.6.18

  3. Choi M, Kim S-W, Yun C, Oh J (2020) OCT angiography features of neovascularization as predictive factors for frequent recurrence in age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2020.01.012

  4. Zhu Y, Cui Y, Wang JC et al (2020) Different scan protocols affect the detection rates of diabetic retinopathy lesions by wide-field swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography. Am J Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2020.03.004

  5. Kashani AH, Lee SY, Moshfeghi A, Durbin MK, Puliafeto CA (2015) Optical coherence tomography angiography of retinal venous occlusion. Retina 35(11):2323–2331. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000000811

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang JC, Lu Y, Sobrin L, Husain D (2020) Multimodal imaging in acute retinal necrosis presenting with macular involvement. Retin Cases Brief Rep. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICB.0000000000000978

  7. Naseripour M, Ghasemi Falavarjani K, Mirshahi R, Sedaghat A (2020) Optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) applications in ocular oncology. Eye Lond Engl. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-020-0819-y

  8. Kashani AH, Chen C-L, Gahm JK et al (2017) Optical coherence tomography angiography: a comprehensive review of current methods and clinical applications. Prog Retin Eye Res 60:66–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang A, Zhang Q, Chen CL, Wang RK (2015) Methods and algorithms for optical coherence tomography-based angiography: a review and comparison. J Biomed Opt 20(10):100901. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JBO.20.10.100901

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Li XX, Wu W, Zhou H et al (2018) A quantitative comparison of five optical coherence tomography angiography systems in clinical performance. Int J Ophthalmol 11(11):1784–1795. https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2018.11.09

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Corvi F, Pellegrini M, Erba S, Cozzi M, Staurenghi G, Giani A (2018) Reproducibility of vessel density, fractal dimension, and foveal avascular zone using 7 different optical coherence tomography angiography devices. Am J Ophthalmol 186:25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2017.11.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lu Y, Wang JC, Zeng R et al (2019) Quantitative comparison of microvascular metrics on three optical coherence tomography angiography devices in chorioretinal disease. Clin Ophthalmol Auckl NZ 13:2063–2069. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S215322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Munk MR, Giannakaki-Zimmermann H, Berger L et al (2017) OCT-angiography: a qualitative and quantitative comparison of 4 OCT-A devices. PLoS One 12(5):e0177059. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177059

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Al-Sheikh M, Falavarjani KG, Tepelus TC et al (2017) Quantitative comparison of swept-source and spectral-domain OCT angiography in healthy eyes. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 48(5):385–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Falavarjani KG, Shenazandi H, Naseri D et al (2018) Foveal avascular zone and vessel density in healthy subjects: an optical coherence tomography angiography study. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 13(3):260–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rocholz R, Teussink MM, Dolz-Marco R, Holzhey C, Dechent JF, Tafreshi A, Schulz S (2018) SPECTRALIS optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA): principles and clinical applications. Heidelberg Engineering Academy. https://www.heidelbergengineering.com/media/e-learning/Totara/Dateien/pdf-tutorials/210111-001_SPECTRALIS%20OCTA%20-%20Principles%20and%20Clinical%20Applications_EN.pdf

  17. Yarmohammadi A, Zangwill LM, Diniz-Filho A et al (2016) Relationship between optical coherence tomography angiography vessel density and severity of visual field loss in glaucoma. Ophthalmology 123(12):2498–2508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mihailovic N, Brand C, Lahme L et al (2018) Repeatability, reproducibility and agreement of foveal avascular zone measurements using three different optical coherence tomography angiography devices. PLoS One 13(10):e0206045. Published 2018 Oct 18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206045

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Shoji T, Yoshikawa Y, Kanno J et al (2018) Reproducibility of macular vessel density calculations via imaging with two different swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography systems. Transl Vis Sci Technol 7(6):31. Published 2018 Dec 21. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.7.6.31

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Ohayon A, Sacconi R, Semoun O et al (2020) Choroidal neovascular area and vessel density comparison between two swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography devices. Retina. 40(3):521–528. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000002430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chen Q, Ma Q, Wu C et al (2017) Macular vascular fractal dimension in the deep capillary layer as an early indicator of microvascular loss for retinopathy in type 2 diabetic patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 58(9):3785–3794. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.17-21461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Harvard Retinal Imaging Lab, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, MA, USA

    Yifan Lu, Jay C. Wang, Ying Cui, Ying Zhu, Rebecca Zeng, Edward S. Lu, Raviv Katz & John B. Miller

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Yifan Lu, Jay C. Wang, Edward S. Lu, Deeba Husain, Demetrios G. Vavvas, Leo A. Kim, Joan W. Miller & John B. Miller

  3. Retina Service, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, MA, USA

    Jay C. Wang, Deeba Husain, Demetrios G. Vavvas, Leo A. Kim, Joan W. Miller & John B. Miller

  4. Guangdong Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China

    Ying Cui

  5. Department of Ophthalmology, **angya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China

    Ying Zhu

  6. Retina Service, Mass. Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, 243 Charles St, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    John B. Miller

Authors
  1. Yifan Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jay C. Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ying Cui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ying Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rebecca Zeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Edward S. Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Raviv Katz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Deeba Husain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Demetrios G. Vavvas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Leo A. Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Joan W. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. John B. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John B. Miller.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethics approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lu, Y., Wang, J.C., Cui, Y. et al. A quantitative comparison of four optical coherence tomography angiography devices in healthy eyes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 259, 1493–1501 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-020-04945-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-020-04945-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation