About OJO | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Author Instructions | Reviewer Guidelines | Online submissionLogin 
Oman Journal of Ophthalmology Oman Journal of Ophthalmology
  Editorial Board | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact
https://www.omanophthalmicsociety.org/ Users Online: 1335  Wide layoutNarrow layoutFull screen layout Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size

 Table of Contents    
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 306-307  

Subfoveal choroidal thickness measurements in spectral-domain and swept-source optical coherence tomography devices

1 National Healthcare Group Eye Institute, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore
2 National Healthcare Group Eye Institute, Tan Tock Seng Hospital; Fundus Image Reading Center, National Healthcare Group Eye Institute, Singapore

Date of Web Publication29-Oct-2018

Correspondence Address:
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ojo.OJO_69_2018

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Chay IW, Lim LW, Cheong KX, Tan CS. Subfoveal choroidal thickness measurements in spectral-domain and swept-source optical coherence tomography devices. Oman J Ophthalmol 2018;11:306-7

How to cite this URL:
Chay IW, Lim LW, Cheong KX, Tan CS. Subfoveal choroidal thickness measurements in spectral-domain and swept-source optical coherence tomography devices. Oman J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2018 [cited 2022 Aug 15];11:306-7. Available from: https://www.ojoonline.org/text.asp?2018/11/3/306/244333


We read with interest the article by Narendran et al.,[1] reporting that choroidal thickness measurements obtained using a spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) device (Spectralis OCT; Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) and a swept-source OCT (SS-OCT) device (Topcon deep range imaging [DRI] OCT-1; Topcon Inc., Tokyo, Japan) were comparable.

In their prospective cohort of 31 normal participants, the authors found that the mean subfoveal choroidal thickness measurements of the SD-OCT and SS-OCT devices were 325.3 and 319.5 μm, respectively.[1] Similar results have also been reported in other studies on subfoveal choroidal thickness in healthy volunteers.[2],[3],[4] In addition, it has been reported that choroidal thickness measurements obtained from SD-OCT and SS-OCT devices are also comparable among eyes with retinal diseases. In a study of 64 patients with retinal diseases measured using the same two OCT devices, the mean difference between an SD-OCT and SS-OCT device was 8.4 μm (P = 0.014), which was slightly more than the difference among healthy eyes.[2]

In Table 1 of the article by Narendran et al.,[1] the authors cited a study by Tan et al.[5] involving fifty eyes measured using the same SD-OCT and SS-OCT devices and quoted a mean difference of 19 μm between the two devices. We would like to point out an important difference in that study. The choroidal thicknesses were central subfield choroidal thicknesses, instead of subfoveal point choroidal thickness measured in the other papers.[1],[2],[3],[4] In addition, that study actually reported a mean central subfield choroidal thickness of 312.4 μm for the Spectralis OCT, compared with 263.1 μm using the automated segmentation features of the DRI OCT-1, which resulted in a mean difference of 49.3 μm (P < 0.001). The difference of 19 μm that is reported in Table 1 of the current article actually refers to the choroidal thicknesses that were obtained after manual adjustment of the segmentation boundaries on the DRI OCT-1 by trained reading center graders. This illustrates the impact of segmentation boundaries on choroidal thickness measurements.

In summary, we agree that the subfoveal choroidal thickness measurements are comparable between the studied SD-OCT and SS-OCT devices. However, it is also important to note that the presence of uncorrected automatic segmentation errors could increase the variability of choroidal thickness measurements between SD-OCT and SS-OCT devices.

Financial support and sponsorship

Dr. Tan receives research funding from the National Medical Research Council Transition Award (Code: NMRC/TA/0039/2015). Dr. Tan also receives conference support from Bayer (South East Asia) Pte. Ltd., Heidelberg Engineering (Heidelberg, Germany), and Novartis (Singapore).

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

   References Top

Narendran S, Manayath G, Venkatapathy N. Comparison of choroidal thickness using swept-source and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography in normal Indian eyes. Oman J Ophthalmol 2018;11:38-41.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
Tan CS, Ngo WK, Cheong KX. Comparison of choroidal thicknesses using swept source and spectral domain optical coherence tomography in diseased and normal eyes. Br J Ophthalmol 2015;99:354-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
Matsuo Y, Sakamoto T, Yamashita T, Tomita M, Shirasawa M, Terasaki H, et al. 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 2013;54:7630-6.  Back to cited text no. 3
Ikuno Y, Maruko I, Yasuno Y, Miura M, Sekiryu T, Nishida K, et al. Reproducibility of retinal and choroidal thickness measurements in enhanced depth imaging and high-penetration optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:5536-40.  Back to cited text no. 4
Tan CS, Cheong KX, Lim LW, Sadda SR. Comparison of macular choroidal thicknesses from swept source and spectral domain optical coherence tomography. Br J Ophthalmol 2016;100:995-9.  Back to cited text no. 5


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded32    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal