Comparison of retinal layer thickness measurements obtained using two different swept-source optical coherence tomography imaging modes



To compare the retinal layer thickness values obtained using two swept-source optical coherence tomography (OCT) wide modes.


This study included fifty-four healthy eyes. Three-dimensional (3D) wide and 12 radial wide OCT scans were performed in each eye on the same day. Full retinal, retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL), and ganglion cell–inner plexiform layer (GC–IPL) thicknesses with fully automated segmentation obtained in 3D wide mode, and with semi-automated correction and fully automated segmentation obtained in 12 radial wide scan.


The intraclass correlation coefficients for full retinal thickness measurements obtained by the two protocols with fully automated segmentation were from 0.958 to 0.996, 0.754–0.918 for GC–IPL thickness measurements, and 0.013–0.727 for RNFL thickness measurements, in the nine ETDRS subfields.


The full retinal thickness measurements determined using both fully automated segmentation algorithms were reliable and clinically acceptable. However, segmentation errors are shown when using the 12 radial wide scanning protocol with fully automated segmentation for measurement of RNFL and GC–IPL thickness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6


  1. 1.

    Esmaeelpour M, Povazay B, Hermann B et al (2010) Three-dimensional 1060-nm OCT: choroidal thickness maps in normal subjects and improved posterior segment visualization in cataract patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 51:5260–5266

  2. 2.

    Tan CS, Ngo WK, Cheong KX (2015) Comparison of choroidal thicknesses using swept source and spectral domain optical coherence tomography in diseased and normal eyes. Br J Ophthalmol 99:354–358

  3. 3.

    Mansouri K, Medeiros FA, Tatham AJ, Marchase N, Weinreb RN (2014) Evaluation of retinal and choroidal thickness by swept-source optical coherence tomography: repeatability and assessment of artifacts. Am J Ophthalmol 157:1022–1032

  4. 4.

    Tan CS, Chan JC, Cheong KX, Ngo WK, Sadda SR (2015) Comparison of retinal thicknesses measured using swept-source and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography devices. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 46:172–179

  5. 5.

    Copete S, Flores-Moreno I, Montero JA, Duker JS, Ruiz-Moreno JM (2014) Direct comparison of spectral-domain and swept-source OCT in the measurement of choroidal thickness in normal eyes. Br J Ophthalmol 98:334–338

  6. 6.

    Matsuo Y, Sakamoto T, Yamashita T, Tomita M, Shirasawa M, Terasaki H (2013) Comparisons of choroidal thickness of normal eyes obtained by two different spectral-domain OCT instruments and one swept-source OCT instrument. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54:7630–7636

  7. 7.

    Jeoung JW, Park KH, Kim TW, Khwarg SI, Kim DM (2005) Diagnostic ability of optical coherence tomography with a normative database to detect localized retinal nerve fiber layer defects. Ophthalmology 112:2157–2163

  8. 8.

    Chang RT, Knight OJ, Feuer WJ, Budenz DL (2009) Sensitivity and specificity of time-domain versus spectral-domain optical coherence tomography in diagnosing early to moderate glaucoma. Ophthalmology 116:2294–2299

  9. 9.

    Lee HJ, Kim MS, Jo YJ, Kim JY (2015) Thickness of the macula, retinal nerve fiber layer, and ganglion cell layer in the epiretinal membrane: the repeatability study of optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 56:4554–4559

  10. 10.

    Ishikawa H, Stein DM, Wollstein G, Beaton S, Fujimoto JG, Schuman JS (2005) Macular segmentation with optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46:2012–2017

  11. 11.

    Mwanza JC, Durbin MK, Budenz DL et al (2012) Glaucoma diagnostic accuracy of ganglion cell–inner plexiform layer thickness: comparison with nerve fiber layer and optic nerve head. Ophthalmology 119:1151–1158

  12. 12.

    Sato S, Hirooka K, Baba T, Tenkumo K, Nitta E, Shiraga F (2013) Correlation between the ganglion cell–inner plexiform layer thickness measured with cirrus HD-OCT and macular visual field sensitivity measured with microperimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54:3046–3051

  13. 13.

    Min JK, Lee S, Kim JS, Woo JM, Yang HS (2017) Effects of diabetic macular edema on repeatability of retinal nerve fiber layer thickness measurements at the macular and peripapillary area using swept-source optical coherence tomography. Curr Eye Res 42:307–314

Download references




No financial disclosures.

Author information

Correspondence to Jung Kee Min.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yoon, Y.S., Park, C.U., Song, J.H. et al. Comparison of retinal layer thickness measurements obtained using two different swept-source optical coherence tomography imaging modes. Int Ophthalmol (2020).

Download citation


  • Ganglion cell–inner plexiform layer
  • Nerve fiber layer
  • Reliability
  • Retina
  • Swept-source optical coherence tomography