Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography in Patients With the Boston Keratoprosthesis Type 1.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Jessica A Sun, Grace Johnson, Chhavi Saini, Aimee C Chang, Julia Devlin, Haobing Wang, In Young Chung, Thomas H Dohlman, Eleftherios I Paschalis, James Chodosh, Lucy Q Shen
{"title":"Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography in Patients With the Boston Keratoprosthesis Type 1.","authors":"Jessica A Sun, Grace Johnson, Chhavi Saini, Aimee C Chang, Julia Devlin, Haobing Wang, In Young Chung, Thomas H Dohlman, Eleftherios I Paschalis, James Chodosh, Lucy Q Shen","doi":"10.1097/ICO.0000000000003805","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To report on optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) in patients with a type 1 Boston keratoprosthesis (KPro) and determine its feasibility through assessment of imaging artifacts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>KPro and non-KPro subjects were matched for age, gender, and glaucoma diagnosis. OCTA images of the peripapillary optic nerve were obtained, reviewed by 2 readers masked to the diagnosis for artifacts and usability, and used for microvascular measurements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>KPro subjects (n = 18) had worse visual acuity than non-KPro (n = 36) subjects (LogMAR mean ± standard deviation 0.36 ± 0.30 vs. 0.07 ± 0.11, P < 0.001) and a greater proportion were monocular (56% vs. 3%, P < 0.001). OCTA from KPro eyes had more artifacts per scan than images from non-KPro eyes (4 ± 2 vs. 2 ± 2, P < 0.001). About 33% of KPro images were useable based on having image quality score above 40 and artifact in less than 10% of the peripapillary region. Worse visual acuity (odds ratio [OR] 0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2 x 10-4-0.30, P = 0.02) and KPro (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05-0.63, P = 0.008) were associated with lowered likelihood of usability. Useable OCTA from 3 KPro eyes with glaucoma demonstrated microvascular defects in the inferior peripapillary region and lower vessel density and flow compared with 3 KPro eyes without glaucoma.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This is the first study assessing OCTA in KPro patients and identified a higher incidence of artifacts that may be associated with the KPro optic. About 33% of KPro images were useable for microvascular measurements, supporting further OCTA research in this population to assess vascular pathology of glaucoma.</p>","PeriodicalId":10710,"journal":{"name":"Cornea","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cornea","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000003805","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To report on optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) in patients with a type 1 Boston keratoprosthesis (KPro) and determine its feasibility through assessment of imaging artifacts.

Methods: KPro and non-KPro subjects were matched for age, gender, and glaucoma diagnosis. OCTA images of the peripapillary optic nerve were obtained, reviewed by 2 readers masked to the diagnosis for artifacts and usability, and used for microvascular measurements.

Results: KPro subjects (n = 18) had worse visual acuity than non-KPro (n = 36) subjects (LogMAR mean ± standard deviation 0.36 ± 0.30 vs. 0.07 ± 0.11, P < 0.001) and a greater proportion were monocular (56% vs. 3%, P < 0.001). OCTA from KPro eyes had more artifacts per scan than images from non-KPro eyes (4 ± 2 vs. 2 ± 2, P < 0.001). About 33% of KPro images were useable based on having image quality score above 40 and artifact in less than 10% of the peripapillary region. Worse visual acuity (odds ratio [OR] 0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2 x 10-4-0.30, P = 0.02) and KPro (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05-0.63, P = 0.008) were associated with lowered likelihood of usability. Useable OCTA from 3 KPro eyes with glaucoma demonstrated microvascular defects in the inferior peripapillary region and lower vessel density and flow compared with 3 KPro eyes without glaucoma.

Conclusions: This is the first study assessing OCTA in KPro patients and identified a higher incidence of artifacts that may be associated with the KPro optic. About 33% of KPro images were useable for microvascular measurements, supporting further OCTA research in this population to assess vascular pathology of glaucoma.

波士顿1型角膜假体患者的光学相干断层血管造影。
目的:报道光学相干断层血管造影(OCTA)在1型波士顿角膜假体(KPro)患者中的应用,并通过评估成像伪影来确定其可行性。方法:KPro和非KPro受试者在年龄、性别和青光眼诊断方面进行匹配。获得乳头周围视神经的OCTA图像,由2个屏蔽诊断伪影和可用性的阅读器进行审查,并用于微血管测量。结果:KPro患者(n = 18)视力差于非KPro患者(n = 36) (LogMAR平均值±标准差0.36±0.30比0.07±0.11,P < 0.001),单眼患者比例更高(56%比3%,P < 0.001)。KPro眼睛的OCTA每次扫描比非KPro眼睛的图像有更多的伪影(4±2比2±2,P < 0.001)。大约33%的KPro图像是可用的,基于图像质量评分在40以上,伪影在不到10%的乳头周围区域。较差的视力(比值比[OR] 0.01, 95%可信区间[CI] 2 × 10-4-0.30, P = 0.02)和KPro(比值比[OR] 0.19, 95% CI 0.05-0.63, P = 0.008)与较低的可用性可能性相关。与3只无青光眼的KPro眼相比,3只患有青光眼的KPro眼的可用OCTA显示下乳头周围区微血管缺损,血管密度和流量较低。结论:这是第一项评估KPro患者OCTA的研究,并确定了与KPro视点相关的伪影发生率较高。大约33%的KPro图像可用于微血管测量,支持在该人群中进一步进行OCTA研究,以评估青光眼的血管病理学。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cornea
Cornea 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
10.70%
发文量
354
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: For corneal specialists and for all general ophthalmologists with an interest in this exciting subspecialty, Cornea brings together the latest clinical and basic research on the cornea and the anterior segment of the eye. Each volume is peer-reviewed by Cornea''s board of world-renowned experts and fully indexed in archival format. Your subscription brings you the latest developments in your field and a growing library of valuable professional references. Sponsored by The Cornea Society which was founded as the Castroviejo Cornea Society in 1975.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信