OCT Seminari 2

Is there a justification of the vision of the right eye (VA: 0.7) ?

• Yes

• No

Do you think that if he had correctly performed the amblyopia treatment (occlusion), vision would have improved?

• Yes

• No

¿Qué tipo de report podéis observar?

• Line Report 6.0 mm

• Radial Report 12.0 mm

• 5Line Cros Report 12.0 mm

• Radial Report 6.0 mm

• Line Report 12.0 mm

¿Qué podéis observar en este report?

• Central hypopigmentation not observed on the red-free

• Central hypopigmentation observed on the red-free

• Central hyperpigmentation not observed on the red-free

• Central hyperpigmentation observed on the red-free

¿Qué podéis observar en la OCT?

• Possible retinal staphyloma

• Thinness of the veins with respect to the arteries

• Epiretinal membrane

• Preservation of the central photoreceptor line with peripheral loss

Describe any pertinent findings from this report

• There is greater thinning of the RNFL layer of the RE than of the LE

• There is a strong symmetry of the RNFL layers between both eyes

• The signal strength is 4/10 and 6/10 in OD and OS respectively

• This report suggests there is a thin RNFL superiorly and inferiorly in OU.

What do you see is different in RNFL Desviation map?

• The OCT from 6 months shows that the RNFL thickness are within normal ranges.

• The OCT from today suggested a thin RNFL, whereas the OCT from 6 months ago did not and instead shows that the RNFL thickness are within normal ranges.

• The OCT from today suggested a thick RNFL, thickness are within normal ranges.

• During the last 6 months there has been a loss of symmetry between both eyes

What do you see is different in RNFL Thickness Map?

• The distribution and shape of the thickness (the yellow and red colours) in both eyes show progression from 6 months ago compared to today.

• Very similar to today’s OCT compared to the OCT from 6 months ago

• The distribution and shape of the thickness in both eyes are consistent from 6 months ago compared to today.

• Worsening RNFL Thickness map OCT from 6 months ago compared to the OCT from today.

Answer explanation

Maybe it’s a good idea to look at the topography and the tomograms first to confirm correct segmentation and capture of the desired region.

What could explain this discrepancy?

• These findings are due to a large mobile posterior vitreous detachment floater, which was picked up within the neuroretinal rim.

• The incorrect date of birth has been entered in the OCT ONH/RNFL from today’s visit.

• The OCT ONH/RNFL from 6 months ago was performed on an unreliable machine; the new OCT from today is more accurate.

• The findings today are due to poor signal strength and artefact and are nothing concerning.

Answer explanation

The date of birth in the OCT from today’s visit is entered incorrectly!

 

The patient’s correct date of birth is 07/18/1929 (entered in the OCT from 6 months ago) whereas the date of birth entered at today’s visit is 07/18/1999.

What do you see in the images?

• Peripalilar atrophy characteristic of myopic retina

• Transparent crystalline

• Preserved vascular arcades

• Loss of photoreceptors in peripheral retina more marked in LE

• Vitreous veil observed in RE

Answer explanation