Retinal and intra-retinal layer thicknesses are routinely generated from optical coherence tomography (OCT) images, but on-board software capabilities and image scaling assumptions are not consistent across devices. This study evaluates the device-independent Iowa Reference Algorithms (Iowa Institute for Biomedical Imaging) for automated intra-retinal layer segmentation and image scaling for three OCT systems. Healthy participants (n = 25) underwent macular volume scans using a Cirrus HD-OCT (Zeiss), 3D-OCT 1000 (Topcon), and a non-commercial long-wavelength (1040nm) OCT on two occasions. Mean thickness of 10 intra-retinal layers was measured in three ETDRS subfields (fovea, inner ring and outer ring) using the Iowa Reference Algorithms. Where available, total retinal thicknesses were measured using on-board software. Measured axial eye length (AEL)-dependent scaling was used throughout, with a comparison made to the system-specific fixed-AEL scaling. Inter-session repeatability and agreement between OCT systems and segmentation methods was assessed. Inter-session coefficient of repeatability (CoR) for the foveal subfield total retinal thickness was 3.43μm, 4.76μm, and 5.98μm for the Zeiss, Topcon, and long-wavelength images respectively. For the commercial software, CoR was 4.63μm (Zeiss) and 7.63μm (Topcon). The Iowa Reference Algorithms demonstrated higher repeatability than the on-board software and, in addition, reliably segmented all 10 intra-retinal layers. With fixed-AEL scaling, the algorithm produced significantly different thickness values for the three OCT devices (P<0.05), with these discrepancies generally characterized by an overall offset (bias) and correlations with axial eye length for the foveal subfield and outer ring (P<0.05). This correlation was reduced to an insignificant level in all cases when AEL-dependent scaling was used. Overall, the Iowa Reference Algorithms are viable for clinical and research use in healthy eyes imaged with these devices, however ocular biometry is required for accurate quantification of OCT images.

Microperimetry is a novel technique for assessing visual function that appears particularly suitable for age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Compared with standard automated perimetry, microperimetry offers several unique features. It simultaneously images the fundus, incorporates an eye-tracking system to correct the stimulus location for fixation loss, and identifies any preferred retinal loci. We identified 52 articles that met the inclusion criteria for a systematic review of microperimetry in the assessment of visual function in AMD. We discuss microperimetry and AMD in relation to disease severity, structural imaging outcomes, other measures of visual function, and evaluation of the efficacy of surgical and/or medical therapies in clinical trials. The evidence for the use of microperimetry in the functional assessment of AMD is encouraging. Disruptions of the ellipsoid zone band and retinal pigment epithelium are clearly associated with reduced differential light sensitivity despite the maintenance of good visual acuity. Reduced differential light sensitivity is also associated with outer segment thinning and retinal pigment epithelium thickening in early AMD and with both a thickening and a thinning of the whole retina in choroidal neovascularization. Microperimetry, however, lacks the robust diffuse and focal loss age-corrected probability analyses associated with standard automated perimetry, and the technique is currently limited by this omission.

Purpose: The ''traffic light'' color designation of differential light sensitivity used in a number of microperimeters does not encompass the conventional Total and Pattern Deviation probability analyses adopted by standard automated perimetry. We determined whether the color designation is indicative of abnormality as represented by the ''gold standard'' Pattern Deviation probability analysis. Methods: Total and Pattern Deviation probability levels, using two different methods, were derived at each of 40 stimulus locations, within 78 eccentricity, from 66 ocular healthy individuals (66 eyes) who had undergone microperimetry with the Macular Integrity Assessment microperimeter. The probability levels were applied to the corresponding fields from each of 45 individuals (45 eyes) with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and evaluated in relation to the color designation. Results: Sensitivities designated in orange encompassed the entire range of Pattern Deviation probability levels (from normal to P 1%). Those designated in green were mostly normal; those in red/black generally corresponded to the 1% probability level. Conclusions: The green and the red/black designations are generally indicative of normal and abnormal probability values, respectively. The orange designation encompassed all probability outcomes and should not be relied upon for visual field interpretation. The evidence base indicates replacement of the color designation of sensitivity in AMD by Total Deviation and Pattern Deviation analyses. Translational Relevance: The use of Total and Pattern Deviation probability analyses is not universal in all microperimeters, and the derivation of these values indicates that color coding will lead to errors in evaluating visual field loss.