2009
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2008.150276
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measurement of total blood flow in the normal human retina using Doppler Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography

Abstract: Aim-To measure total retinal blood flow in normal human eyes using Doppler Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography (FD-OCT).Methods-10 normal people aged 35 to 69 years were measured for the right eye using Doppler FD-OCT. Double circular scans around the optic nerve heads were used. Four pairs of circular scans that transected all retinal branch vessels were completed in 2 s. Total retinal blood flow was obtained by summing the flows in the branch veins. Measurements from the eight scans were averaged. Ve… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

15
91
4
2

Year Published

2009
2009
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 115 publications
(112 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
15
91
4
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Based on this concept, OMAG generates ONH microcirculatory information by subtracting two consecutive B-scans; the OCT signals from static retinal tissues are removed while the signals from moving blood cells remain. We have found OMAG has high intra-and inter-observer repeatability and reproducibility [coefficient of variation <3.7% (intra-observer) and intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.953 (inter-observer); unpublished data], which compares favorably to traditional methods, such as DOCT (17). By averaging differences of each repetition, OMAG further enhances the signal-to-noise ratio and generates blood flow signals with better contrast.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Based on this concept, OMAG generates ONH microcirculatory information by subtracting two consecutive B-scans; the OCT signals from static retinal tissues are removed while the signals from moving blood cells remain. We have found OMAG has high intra-and inter-observer repeatability and reproducibility [coefficient of variation <3.7% (intra-observer) and intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.953 (inter-observer); unpublished data], which compares favorably to traditional methods, such as DOCT (17). By averaging differences of each repetition, OMAG further enhances the signal-to-noise ratio and generates blood flow signals with better contrast.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Prototype Doppler OCT systems allow measurement of retinal blood flow by the assessment of light reflectivity changes in retinal blood vessels over short time periods. 37 'Swept-source' OCT systems allow significant increases in imaging sensitivity and speed (eg 4300 000 A-scans per second), through the use of a tunable laser, 38 whereas polarization-sensitive OCT may prove to encode much of the information provided by FAF. 39 Finally, the use of adaptive optics in OCT devices may increase the transverse resolution of OCT systems and provide cellular level detail.…”
Section: Current Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2 graders used the semi-automated DOCTORC software and 1 used an earlier totally manual software employed in previous publications. 2,3 The total retinal blood flows ( Table 1) determined by the two graders using DOCTORC software are similar to one another and to flow rates determined by the other grader using the manual software. Only 65% of the eyes had valid results because some of the data were not based on dual angle protocol, but single angle protocol.…”
Section: Representative Resultsmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…13,14 Doppler OCT measurements made with the newer semi-automated DOCTORC software agreed closely with the results of manual measurements that we published previously. [1][2][3][4][5] The difference between DOCTORC measurements and manual measurements in individual cases, as measured by CV, is similar to inter-grader differences. This indicates that the difference was primarily associated with subjective portion of the grading process, and not the difference between software.…”
Section: -5mentioning
confidence: 72%