4.6 Article

Wide-field Choroidal Vascularity in Healthy Eyes

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 193, Issue -, Pages 100-105

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2018.06.016

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To report variation of choroidal vascularity index (CVI) in macular and mid-equator areas in healthy subjects using wide-field optical coherence tomography (WF-OCT). DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional study. METHODS: SETTING: Two-center study. STUDY POPULATION: Twenty eyes of 20 healthy subjects. OBSERVATION PROCEDURE: Single high-definition scans passing through the fovea in both vertical and horizontal meridians were studied. Images were taken in primary gaze and extremes of gaze and a manual montage was created. A previously reported semi-automated algorithm was used to calculate the CVI in macular, superior, inferior, temporal, and nasal quadrants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Difference in CVI in macular area and 4 quadrants. RESULTS: Twenty eyes from 20 subjects were enrolled in the study. The mean age was 28.85 +/- 6.29 years with men comprising 9 of the 20 subjects (45.0%). The refractive error (spherical equivalent) ranged from 3.00 to + 0.75 diopters. The average CVI in the macular area (40.01 +/- 7.67) was significantly smaller than in any of the other fundus areas (all P<.01). The maximum CVI was seen in the nasal quadrant (50.84 +/- 5.64), followed by inferior (47.93 +/- 9.31), temporal (46.14 +/- 7.06), and superior (45.72 +/- 7.69). The nasal quadrant was found to have the least coefficient of variation (CV) of CVI (0.11) while the inferior and macular area had the highest CV (0.19). CONCLUSIONS: We report CVI in WF-OCT in healthy young individuals. CVI seems to have a wide topographic variation. The macular area had the least CVI. CVI values are more consistent with lesser CV in the nasal quadrant compared to the other quadrants and macular area. ((C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available