Comparison of Visante and slit-lamp anterior segment optical coherence tomography in imaging the anterior chamber angle.

AIMS: To compare the diagnostic performance of two anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) devices in assessing the anterior chamber angle (ACA). METHODS: Visante-OCT and slit-lamp-OCT (SL-OCT) were performed on 101 patients by a single operator. The AS-OCT images were processed by customised 'dewarping' software and assessed by two glaucoma specialists masked to clinical findings. A closed ACA was defined by the presence of contact between the iris and angle anterior to the scleral spur. Measurements of the ACA, anterior chamber depth (ACD), and pupil diameter were analysed. Gonioscopy was performed by another examiner masked to AS-OCT findings. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis could be carried out in 83 (83%) eyes and quantitative analysis in 61 (60%) eyes. A closed angle in at least one quadrant of the eye was observed in 30 eyes with gonioscopy; Visante-OCT imaging identified 29 of 30 (97%) and SL-OCT imaging identified 27 of 30 (90%) of these eyes (P=0.50, McNemar test). Visante-OCT detected more eyes with at least one closed quadrant than SL-OCT (55 vs46 eyes, respectively, P=0.01). Overall, SL-OCT had better agreement with gonioscopy than with Visante-OCT. Both AS-OCTs showed good agreement for ACD measurements; however, SL-OCT tended to provide consistently higher ACA measurements and smaller pupil diameters than did Visante-OCT. CONCLUSIONS: Both AS-OCT devices detected most of the eyes with closed ACA on gonioscopy. However, Visante-OCT detected more closed ACAs than did SL-OCT. The better agreement between SL-OCT and gonioscopy is likely because of the use of visible light during both examinations. The ACA measurements obtained with each device are not interchangeable.

Quantitative analysis of anterior segment optical coherence tomography images: the Zhongshan Angle Assessment Program.

AIM: To describe a new image analysis method and software for anterior chamber images obtained by the anterior-segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) and to assess its intraobserver and interobserver measurement reproducibility. METHODS: Twenty 8-bit greyscale 600x300 AS-OCT images with apparent wide angles and 20 images with apparent narrow angles were consecutively selected from a database. Two glaucoma fellowship-trained ophthalmologists used proprietary image analysis software to analyse the images twice. Algorithms defined the borders and curvatures of anterior chamber (AC) structures and measured AC parameters using scleral spur location as the only observer input. The intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of scleral spur location and angle parameters was calculated in terms of limits of agreement (LOA; mean of differences+/-1.96 SD of differences) and coefficient of variation (CV; SD of differences/overall mean). RESULTS: The analysis software successfully measured all parameters in all images. When the same image was assessed twice by the same grader, the mean differences ranged from 0 to 0.010 mm in linear measurements and 0.001 to 0.006 mm2 in angle area measurements. LOA tended to be greater in the wider angles. The upper and lower limit values of LOAs were approximately 1/5 to 1/4 of the overall mean. Measurements between two graders had a higher variance. Reproducibility in terms of CV was better in wide angles when compared with narrow angles. The reproducibility of scleral spur placement between observers was poorer in narrow angles (p = 0.001). About 50% of the interobserver variance in angle-area measurements was attributable to the variance of scleral spur placement, while this proportion was only 10-20% in linear measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Determination of angle parameters using semiautomated software leads to variability in measurement. Variability increases when more than one observer identifies the scleral spur. Variability differs in narrow and open angles, and so including both types is essential when evaluating angle-assessment software. A fully automated analysis and higher image resolution would likely improve quantification of Visante AS-OCT images.

The relation between intraocular pressure peak in the water drinking test and visual field progression in glaucoma.

AIM: To compare the results of the water drinking test between glaucomatous eyes with and without visual field progression. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 76 eyes of 76 open angle glaucoma patients followed for a mean period of 26.0 (SD 13.8) months. Patients were submitted to the water drinking test at the beginning of the follow up period. Reliable achromatic automated perimetry tests performed during the studied period were used to characterise visual field progression. All subjects were under clinical therapy and had an intraocular pressure (IOP) lower than 17 mm Hg monitored by isolated measurements during the follow up period. The results of the water drinking test were compared between glaucomatous eyes with and without visual field progression. RESULTS: Twenty eight eyes reached definite visual field progression. There were no significant differences in the mean age, sex, race, basal IOP, number of antiglaucomatous drugs, initial mean deviation (MD), and corrected pattern standard deviation (CPSD) between eyes that showed visual field progression and the ones who did not progress. A significant difference of 1.9 (SD 0.6) mm Hg (p = 0.001, analysis of covariance; 95% CI 0.8 to 3.0) was observed between glaucomatous eyes that showed visual field deterioration and glaucomatous eyes that did not progress. A significant difference of 16.8% (SD 4.6%) in the mean percentage of IOP variation was also observed between the two groups (p<0.001, analysis of covariance; 95% CI 7.7 to 26.0). CONCLUSIONS: Mean IOP peak and percentage of IOP variation during water drinking test were significantly higher in patients with visual field progression compared with patients who did not progress.