Retinal Differential Light Sensitivity Variation Across the Macula in Healthy Subjects: Importance of Cone Separation and Loci Eccentricity

Morphologic and Functional Assessment of Photoreceptors in Laser-Induced Retinopathy Using Adaptive Optics Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy and Microperimetry

PURPOSE

To assess the cone photoreceptors' morphology and associated retinal sensitivity in laser-induced retinopathy (LIR) using adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (AO-SLO) and microperimetry (MP).

DESIGN

Cohort study.

METHODS

This study included 13 patients (15 eyes) with LIR and 38 age-matched healthy volunteers (38 eyes). Participants underwent comprehensive evaluations including AO-SLO, MP, and spectral-domain OCT. Lesion morphology, cone density, dispersion, and regularity in AO-SLO were assessed and correlated with visual function.

RESULTS

In AO-SLO images, LIR lesions were predominantly characterized by hyporeflective regions, suggesting potential cone loss at the fovea, accompanied by the presence of sizable clumps of hyperreflective material within these lesions. The average size of lesions in affected eyes was 97,128±107,478 µm², ranging from 6705 to 673,348 µm². Compared with the healthy contralateral eye and control group, LIR demonstrated significantly reduced cone density, increased cone dispersion, and notably decreased cone regularity in all 4 quadrants at 3° eccentricity (all P values < .05). Lesion morphology in AO-SLO correlated with ellipsoid zone defects observed in OCT, showing a positive correlation in size (r = 0.84, P < .001) but not with retinal sensitivities (P = .09). Similarly, cone density at 3° eccentricity did not correlate with retinal sensitivities (P = .13).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The study provides crucial insights into the morphologic and functional impacts of LIR on cone photoreceptors, revealing significant morphologic changes in cones that do not consistently align with functional outcomes. This research highlights the need for continued exploration into the relationship between retinal structure and function in LIR, and the importance of heightened public awareness and preventive strategies to mitigate the risk of LIR.

Pearls and Pitfalls of Adaptive Optics Ophthalmoscopy in Inherited Retinal Diseases

Adaptive optics (AO) retinal imaging enables individual photoreceptors to be visualized in the clinical setting. AO imaging can be a powerful clinical tool for detecting photoreceptor degeneration at a cellular level that might be overlooked through conventional structural assessments, such as spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). Therefore, AO imaging has gained significant interest in the study of photoreceptor degeneration, one of the most common causes of inherited blindness. Growing evidence supports that AO imaging may be useful for diagnosing early-stage retinal dystrophy before it becomes apparent on fundus examination or conventional retinal imaging. In addition, serial AO imaging may detect structural disease progression in early-stage disease over a shorter period compared to SD-OCT. Although AO imaging is gaining popularity as a structural endpoint in clinical trials, the results should be interpreted with caution due to several pitfalls, including the lack of standardized imaging and image analysis protocols, frequent ocular comorbidities that affect image quality, and significant interindividual variation of normal values. Herein, we summarize the current state-of-the-art AO imaging and review its potential applications, limitations, and pitfalls in patients with inherited retinal diseases.

Impact of Reference Center Choice on Adaptive Optics Imaging Cone Mosaic Analysis

Purpose

Foveal center marking is a key step in retinal image analysis. We investigated the discordance between the adaptive optics (AO) montage center (AMC) and the foveal pit center (FPC) and its implications for cone mosaic analysis using a commercial flood-illumination AO camera.

Methods

Thirty eyes of 30 individuals (including 15 healthy and 15 patients with rod–cone dystrophy) were included. Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography was used to determine the FPC, and flood-illumination AO imaging was performed with overlapping image frames to create an AO montage. The AMC was determined by averaging the (0,0) coordinates in the four paracentral overlapping AO image frames. Cone mosaic measurements at various retinal eccentricities were compared between corresponding retinal loci relative to the AMC or FPC.

Results

AMCs were located temporally to the FPCs in 14 of 15 eyes in both groups. The average AMC–FPC discordance was 0.85° among healthy controls and 0.33° among patients with rod-cone dystrophy (P < 0.05). The distance of the AMC from the FPC was a significant determinant of the cone density (β estimate = 218 cells/deg²/deg; 95% confidence interval [CI], 107–330; P < 0.001) and inter-cone distance (β estimate = 0.28 arcmin/deg; 95% CI, 0.15–0.40; P < 0.001), after adjustment for age, sex, axial length, spherical equivalent, eccentricity, and disease status.

Conclusions

There is a marked mismatch between the AMC and FPC in healthy eyes that may be modified by disease process such as rod–cone dystrophy. We recommend users of AO imaging systems carefully align the AO montage with a foveal anatomical landmark, such as the FPC, to ensure precise and reproducible localization of the eccentricities and regions of interest for cone mosaic analysis.