4.6 Article

Dense B-Scan Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 190, 期 -, 页码 78-88

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2018.03.029

关键词

-

资金

  1. MACULA FOUNDATION, INC, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To describe a novel imaging technique, which we call dense B-scan optical coherence tomography angiography (DB OCTA), in which thin dense raster scans are used to produce highly resolved structural B-scans with superimposed flow signal that provide precise correlation between retinal microstructure and blood flow. DESIGN: Observational case series. METHODS: Normal eyes and eyes with macular findings of interest were imaged with DB OCTA in which 150.400 OCTB-scans were acquired within a narrow area (from a single line to 1 degree) with a width of 10.30 degrees. B-scans containing 5-7 consecutive frames were processed for OCTA signal and then combined and visualized post-acquisition by application of a Gaussian filter across neighboring scans. The result was a single, smoothed, high-resolution image that contained both structural and flow information. Tracked follow-up DB OCTA was used to detect subtle changes in pathology over time. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-seven eyes from 205 subjects aged 18-100 years (mean 72.88 +/- 14.74 years) with a diverse range of macular findings were imaged with DB OCTA. Highly resolved scans showing precise localization of flow signal were readily obtained, even in patients with poor visual acuity and/or poor fixation. We present clinical examples that demonstrate the utility of DB OCTA for visualizing the associations between retinal microstructure and blood flow. CONCLUSIONS: DB OCTA enables precise correlation between retinal microstructure and blood flow. The ability to obtain accurately aligned follow-up DB OCTA studies has the potential to refine the understanding and clinical management of a wide range of macular diseases. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据