Artifacts of optical coherence tomography
https://doi.org/10.21516/2072-0076-2019-12-1-75-80
Abstract
Purpose. To study and classify artifacts of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT). Material and methods. The retrospective study included OCT data of 112 patients (112 eyes) examined on two Cirrus HD-OCTs (Carl Zeiss Meditec) sequentially for three days (macular area examinations, 67 patients) and five days (examination of the optic disc region, 62 people), including 17 people who underwent both types of examination. Both the original scanning data (B-scans) and the results of their subsequent analysis were evaluated for the presence of artifacts. Results. The criteria of OCT artifacts were suggested and their practical classification was proposed, which distinguishes three types of artifacts: segmentation errors/errors in delineation of the optic disc borders, "out-of-register" artifacts and displacement/fallout of B-scans, and eight main causes of artifacts. The frequency of artifacts ranged from 19 % (analysis of the optic disc area) to 37 % (analysis of the macular area) and 65 % (evaluation of the ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer). The most common were segmentation errors in patients with pronounced pathology or epiretinal membranes (fibrosis). Conclusion. Clinically significant OCT artifacts occur in 19–65 % of cases, depending on the analyzed eye fundus structures. The most common artifacts are segmentation errors in patients with pronounced pathology and epiretinal membranes (fibrosis). A practical classification of OCT artifacts is proposed, which distinguishes three main types and the most important causes of their presence.
About the Authors
A. A. ShpakRussian Federation
Dr. Med. Sci., Professor, head of clinical & functional diagnostics department
59а, Beskudnikovsky Blvd., Moscow, 127486, Russia
M. V. Korobkova
Russian Federation
Ph.D. student, clinical & functional diagnostics department
59а, Beskudnikovsky Blvd., Moscow, 127486, Russia
References
1. Artefact. Available at: https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/artifact
2. Alshareef R., Goud A., Mikhail M., et al. Segmentation errors in macular ganglion cell analysis as determined by optical coherence tomography in eyes with macular pathology. Int. J. Retina Vitreous. 2017; 3: 25 doi: 10.1186/s40942-017-0078-7
3. Asrani S., Essaid L., Alder B., Santiago-Turla C. Artifacts in spectral-domain optical coherence tomography measurements in glaucoma. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014; 132 (4): 396–402. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.7974
4. Balk L., de Vries-Knoppert W., Petzold A. A simple sign for recognizing off-axis OCT measurement beam placement in the context of multicentre studies. PLoS One. 2012; 7 (11): e48222. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048222
5. Han I., Jaffe G. Evaluation of artifacts associated with macular spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology. 2010; 117 (6): 1177–89. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.10.029
6. Ho J., Castro D., Castro L., et al. Clinical assessment of mirror artifacts in spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2010; 51 (7): 3714–20. doi: 10.1167/iovs.09-4057
7. Lee S., Kwon H., Bae H., et al. Frequency, type and cause of artifacts in swept-source and Cirrus HD optical coherence tomography in cases of glaucoma and suspected glaucoma. Curr. Eye Res. 2016; 41 (7): 957–64. doi: 10.3109/02713683.2015.1075219
8. Liu Y., Simavli H., Que C., et al. Patient characteristics associated with artifacts in Spectralis optical coherence tomography imaging of the retinal nerve fiber layer in glaucoma. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2015; 159 (3): 565–76. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2014.12.006
9. Waldstein S., Gerendas B., Montuoro A., et al. Quantitative comparison of macular segmentation performance using identical retinal regions across multiple spectral-domain optical coherence tomography instruments. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2015; 99 (6): 794–800. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305573
10. Avetisov S., Kats M. Using optical coherent tomography in diagnosis of retinal diseases. (Review of literature). Universum: Meditsina i farmakologiya: elektron. nauchn. zhurn. 2017; 4 (38). Available at: http://7universum.com/ru/med/archive/item/4561 (in Russian).
11. Kurysheva N.I. Optical coherence tomography in glaucoma optic neuropathy diagnostics. Part 2. Natsional’nyi zhurnal glaucoma. 2016; 15 (3): 60–70 (in Russian).
12. Cirrus HD-OCT User Manual – Models 500, 5000. Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., 2015.
13. Mansouri K., Medeiros F., Tatham A., et al. Evaluation of retinal and choroidal thickness by swept-source optical coherence tomography: repeatability and assessment of artifacts. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2014; 157 (5): 1022–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2014.02.008
14. Hardin J., Taibbi G., Nelson S., Chao D., Vizzeri G. Factors affecting Cirrus-HD OCT optic disc scan quality: a review with case examples. J. Ophthalmol. 2015; Article ID 746150: 16p. doi: 10.1155/2015/746150
Review
For citations:
Shpak A.A., Korobkova M.V. Artifacts of optical coherence tomography. Russian Ophthalmological Journal. 2019;12(1):75-80. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21516/2072-0076-2019-12-1-75-80