This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (27)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Macular Disorders  • Ocular Imaging  • Alert me on articles by topic

Annie Chan, MD; Jay S. Duker, MD; Tony H. Ko, PhD; James G. Fujimoto, PhD; Joel S. Schuman, MD

Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124:193-198.

Objective  To report normal macular thickness measurements in healthy eyes using the latest commercially available optical coherence tomography (OCT) mapping software, version 3.0, from the Stratus OCT (OCT3).

Methods  Thirty-seven eyes from 37 healthy subjects underwent a complete ophthalmologic examination, including OCT. Six radial scans, 6 mm in length and centered on the fovea, were obtained using the OCT3. Retinal thickness was automatically calculated by OCT mapping software. Measurements were displayed as the mean and standard deviation for each of the 9 regions defined in the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study.

Results  Foveal thickness (mean thickness in the central 1000-µm diameter area) and central foveal thickness (mean thickness at the point of intersection of 6 radial scans) on the OCT3 were 212 ± 20 and 182 ± 23 µm, respectively. Macular thickness measurements were thinnest at the center of the fovea, thickest within 3-mm diameter of the center, and diminished toward the periphery of the macula. The temporal quadrant was thinner than the nasal quadrant. Central foveal thickness was also manually determined as 170 ± 18 µm, approximately 12 µm less than the value automatically obtained from the OCT3 software. There was no correlation between age and foveal thickness (P = .80).

Conclusions  Mean foveal thickness measurements were 38 to 62 µm thicker than previously reported values, while mean central foveal thickness measurements were 20 to 49 µm thicker than previously published values. This discrepancy should be considered when interpreting OCT scans.

Author Affiliations: New England Eye Center, Tufts–New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass (Drs Chan and Duker); Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (Drs Ko and Fujimoto); and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pa (Dr Schuman).

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Macular Thickness Assessment in Healthy Eyes Based on Ethnicity Using Stratus OCT Optical Coherence Tomography
Kelty et al.
IOVS 2008;49:2668-2672.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Maculopathy in uveitis of juvenile idiopathic arthritis: an optical coherence tomography study
de Lahitte et al.
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2008;92:64-69.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Optimal Optical Coherence Tomography-Based Measures in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Macular Edema: Retinal Volume vs Foveal Thickness
Campbell et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2007;125:619-623.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Regional Variations in the Relationship between Macular Thickness Measurements and Myopia
Lam et al.
IOVS 2007;48:376-382.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A reference standard for the measurement of macular oedema.
Goatman
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2006;90:1197-1202.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT