Vincent Michael Patella

Optic nerve head (ONH) topographic analysis by stratus OCT in normal subjects: correlation to disc size, age, and ethnicity.

PurposeTo study optic nerve head (ONH) topography parameters measured by Stratus optical coherence tomography (OCT) in normal subjects and to analyze ONH data for differences in relation to disc size, ethnicity, and age. MethodsThree hundred sixty-seven normal subjects underwent Stratus optical coherence tomography ONH measurement using the fast optic disc scan protocol software package 3.0. Only ONH scans meeting specific qualification criteria were included for data analysis ensuring appropriate scan quality and reliability. ONH topographic parameters of qualified scans were analyzed for differences in regards to optic disc size, age, and ethnicity. ResultsTwo hundred and twelve qualified ONH scans were included for data analysis. Mean disc area was 2.27±0.41 mm2 and optic cup area, rim area, and horizontal integrated rim width increased with disc size, whereas vertical integrated rim area did not. Vertical integrated rim area, horizontal integrated rim width, and rim area decreased and cup area increased with age. Mean optic disc area was larger in African-Americans as compared with Hispanics or Whites and this difference was statistically significant. ConclusionsOptic cup area, rim area, and horizontal integrated rim width correlated to disc size. Vertical integrated rim area, horizontal integrated rim width, rim area, and cup area, changed with age. African-American optic discs had larger disc area measurements as compared with Whites optic discs and this difference was statistically significant.

Normative Databases for Imaging Instrumentation

Purpose:To describe the process by which imaging devices undergo reference database development and regulatory clearance. The limitations and potential improvements of reference (normative) data sets for ophthalmic imaging devices will be discussed. Method:A symposium was held in July 2013 in which a series of speakers discussed issues related to the development of reference databases for imaging devices. Results:Automated imaging has become widely accepted and used in glaucoma management. The ability of such instruments to discriminate healthy from glaucomatous optic nerves, and to detect glaucomatous progression over time is limited by the quality of reference databases associated with the available commercial devices. In the absence of standardized rules governing the development of reference databases, each manufacturer’s database differs in size, eligibility criteria, and ethnic make-up, among other key features. Conclusions:The process for development of imaging reference databases may be improved by standardizing eligibility requirements and data collection protocols. Such standardization may also improve the degree to which results may be compared between commercial instruments.

A new SITA perimetric threshold testing algorithm; construction and a multi-center clinical study

PURPOSE To describe a new time-saving threshold visual field-testing strategy-Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) Faster, which is intended to replace SITA Fast-and to report on a clinical evaluation of this new strategy. DESIGN Description and validity analysis for modifications applied to SITA Fast. METHODS Five centers tested 1 eye of each of 126 glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients with SITA Faster, SITA Fast, and SITA Standard at each of 2 visits. Outcomes included test time, mean deviation, and the visual field index (VFI), significant test points in probability maps, and intertest threshold variability. RESULTS Mean (standard deviation) test times were 171.9 (45.3) seconds for SITA Faster, 247.0 (56.7) for SITA Fast, and 369.5 (64.5) for SITA Standard (P < .001). SITA Faster test times averaged 30.4 % shorter than SITA Fast and 53.5 % shorter than SITA Standard. Mean deviation was similar among all 3 tests.VFI did not differ between SITA Fast and SITA Faster tests, mean difference 0%, but VFI values were 1.2% lower with SITA Standard compared to both SITA Fast (P = .007) and SITA Faster (P = .002). A similar trend was seen with a slightly higher number of significant test points with SITA Standard than with SITA Fast and SITA Faster. All 3 tests had similar test-retest variability over the entire range of threshold values. CONCLUSIONS SITA Faster saved considerable test time. SITA Faster and SITA Fast gave almost identical results. There were small differences between SITA Faster and SITA Standard, of the same character as previously shown for SITA Fast vs SITA Standard.