[Effect of retinal protective therapy on optical coherence tomography angiography (pilot study)]

[Terminology of quantitative optical coherence tomography angiography metrics]

This review is devoted to the English- and Russian-language terminology of quantitative metrics that are used in the evaluation of images obtained by optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A). The paper presents an analysis of the use of terms characterizing intraretinal blood flow (vascular density, perfusion density, skeletonized density, etc.), area and shape of the foveal avascular zone, and choriocapillaris blood flow. The factors causing the heterogeneity of OCT-A terminology are described, including the lack of a unified international nomenclature for OCT-A, features of their Russian translation, inconsistency of the parameters in optical coherence tomography systems of different manufacturers. The article also considers ways to standardize the terminology.

Perimetry Criteria For Assessing The Effectiveness Of Retinoprotective Therapy

Objective — To evaluate the effect of the frequency of retinoprotective therapy courses on perimetry parameters, to compare Octopus 900 perimeter with Octopus 600 perimeter, and to assess threshold perimetry results of G-dynamic versus 24-2 programs. Material and Methods — The study involved 17 patients (34 eyes) diagnosed with primary open-angle glaucoma of advanced stage. Group 1 included subjects receiving a course of Retinalamin every 3 months. Group 2 comprised patients undergoing Retinalamin therapeutics every 6 months. Results — At the onset of the study via G-dynamic and 24-2 programs, we did not observe any statistically significant differences between the groups in mean deviation of retinal photosensitivity (MD) and pattern standard deviation of mean retinal photosensitivity (PSD). However, the absolute values differed between groups and between programs. On average, the differences in MD and PSD values obtained in the photosensitivity study with G-dynamic vs. 24-2 programs were -0.36 dB (CI 95%: -4.27; 3.54) and 0.63 dB (CI 95%: 2.37; -1.11), respectively. Hence, studies performed via 24-2 and G-dynamic programs yielded comparable results (no statistically significant differences). However, they could not be identical due to different spatial arrangement of points in different programs. Conclusion — As a result of conducted treatment, retinal photosensitivity did not exhibit statistically significant changes; however, we observed positive dynamics in both groups in MD and PSD parameters of mean retinal photosensitivity. Different devices (Octopus 600 and Octopus 900 perimeters) and different programs (24-2, G-dynamic) yielded different outcomes due to their technical features and capabilities of reproducibility; however, these differences were not statistically significant.