Casswell, EJ; Heeren, TFC; Lee, E; Khabra, K; Yorston, D; Charteris, DG; (2019) Postretinal Detachment Retinal Displacement: How Best to Detect It? Ophthalmologica 10.1159/000504713.

Preview

Text FAFComparison__Ophthalmologica.pdf - Accepted Version Download (282kB) | Preview

Abstract

PURPOSE: The reported incidence of postretinal detachment (RD) macular displacement varies markedly (14-72%). This may in part be due to the imaging modalities used. We compared the ability of 2 types of fundus autofluorescence (FAF) imaging modalities to detect this phenomenon. METHODS: Prospective study of 70 eyes with macula-involving RDs. 8 weeks postoperatively, patients underwent FAF imaging with 2 machines: a confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope (cSLO) and a digital fundus camera (FC). Images were graded for the presence of hyperautofluorescent RPE (retinal pigment epithelium) ghost vessels, indicative of retinal displacement, by 2 masked, independent graders. RESULTS: In total, 87.1% of FC images were gradable versus 88.6% of cSLO images. Retinal displacement was detectable in 61.4% of FC images versus 52.8% of cSLO images. Vessel shift often appeared more autofluorescent on FC imaging, but choroidal vessels were more visible. Cohen's agreement between the imaging modalities was 0.50, rated as moderate agreement. For both imaging modalities, the inter- and intragrader agreement was substantial, representing good test-retest reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Detection of post-RD retinal displacement was similar between FC and cSLO FAF imaging, with only moderate agreement between both modalities.

Download activity - last month

Export as CSVJSONXML

Download activity - last 12 months

Export as CSVJSONXML

Downloads by country - last 12 months

Export as CSVJSONXML

Archive Staff Only

View Item