Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Comparison of optic nerve head topography in healthy adults using a Heidelberg retina tomograph and retinal thickness analyzer

  • Original paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare optic nerve head topographies measured using a Heidelberg retina tomograph I (HRT) and a retinal thickness analyzer (RTA) and thereby to determine clinical agreement between the two devices. Also, to investigate the reproducibility of optic nerve head measurements using the HRT and RTA.

Methods

The study included 50 normal left eyes of 50 white adults. Ophthalmologic examination, keratometry, fundus photography, and examination with HRT and RTA were performed. To determine reproducibility, 10 volunteers had repeated examinations after a week. Mean (SD), median, and 5th and 95th percentiles were calculated for the HRT and RTA measurements and differences in measurements between HRT and RTA were tested for statistical significance. Clinical agreement was assessed with limits of agreement and reproducibility by a repeatability coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results

Statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) between measurements by HRT and RTA were observed for all topographic parameters, except for rim area (P = 0.051) and height variation contour (P = 0.054). The limits of agreement between HRT and RTA were wide. The repeatability coefficient for HRT was good (≤0.10) for all parameters, except for retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) cross-sectional area (0.28). The repeatability coefficient for RTA was >0.10 for cup area (0.15), rim area (0.19), maximum cup depth (0.13), height variation contour (0.11), and RNFL cross-sectional area (0.14). The ICC was good (≥90%) for all parameters, except for mean RNFL thickness (89%) for HRT, and height variation contour (84%) for RTA.

Conclusion

The observed differences within the limits of agreement were clinically important. Therefore, the two devices cannot be used interchangeably in clinical practice.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jonas JB, Budde WM, Panda-Jonas S (1999) Ophthalmoscopic evaluation of the optic nerve head. Surv Ophthalmol 43:293–320

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sommer A, Katz J, Quigley HA et al (1991) Clinically detectable nerve fiber atrophy precedes the onset of glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol 109:77–83

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Zeyen TG, Caprioli J (1997) Progression of disc and field damage in early glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 111:62–65

    Google Scholar 

  4. Greenfield DS (2002) Optic nerve, retinal nerve fiber analyzers in glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 13:68–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Janknecht P, Funk J (1994) Optic nerve head analyser and Heidelberg retina tomograph: accuracy and reproducibility of topographic measurements in a model eye and volunteers. Br J Ophthalmol 78:760–768

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rohrschneider K, Burk RO, Kruse FE et al (1994) Reproducibility of the optic nerve head topography with a new laser tomographic scanning device. Ophthalmology 101:1044–1049

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Zeimer R, Shahidi M, Mori M et al (1996) A new method for rapid mapping of the retinal thickness at the posterior pole. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 37:1994–2001

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 307–310

  9. Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Blackmann NJM (2004) Reproducibility of clinical data I: continuous outcomes. Pharmaceut Statist 3:99–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Itai N, Tanito M, Chihara E (2003) Comparison of optic disc topography measured by retinal thickness analyzer with measurement by Heidelberg retina tomograph. Jpn J Ophthalmol 47:214–220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hoffmann EM, Medeiros FA, Kramann C et al (2006) Repeatability and reproducibility of optic nerve head topography using the retinal thickness analyzer. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 244:192–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hoffmann EM, Bowd C, Medeiros FA et al (2005) Agreement among three optical imaging methods for the assessment of optic disc topography. Ophthalmology 112:2149–2156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Martinez de la Casa JM, Garcia Feijoo J, Castillo Gomez A et al (2004) Correlations between retinal thickness analyser (RTA) and confocal scanning laser tomography (HRT) in optic disc analysis. Arch Soc Esp Ophtalmol 79:21–25

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara Cvenkel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rekič, A., Breznik, M. & Cvenkel, B. Comparison of optic nerve head topography in healthy adults using a Heidelberg retina tomograph and retinal thickness analyzer. Int Ophthalmol 27, 1–9 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-007-9051-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-007-9051-z

Keywords

Navigation