[optimal] Re: OIS autofluorescence imaging ?

  • From: sandor ferenczy <sandorferenczy@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:24:44 -0400

We've been using it for almost 6 years.
Images look good, clinically there has never been any difference found
for us between SLO FAF (Heidelberg) and fundus camera FAF (OIS). This
has been substantiated in the JOP (see below).

"The Readers <from DARC> in this comparison study determined that
clinically useful autofluorescence imaging can be performed with
either the cSLO or with a modified digital fundus camera."

Orlock DA, Lakner JS, Yannuzzi L, Curtin R, Novalis C, Eandi C. A
comparison of fundus camera and cSLO autofluorescence images. J
Ophthamlic Photography 2007;29:72-73.

Speaking to the camera itself, we are still using the same digital
back fro 2006 and it is still growing strong. A newer camera, with the
newer version of the back, was relatively simple to set up and
produces matching images to the older camera.

We shoot FAF on every posterior seg patient that comes through the clinic.

-sandor



Sandor Ferenczy, CRA, OCTc
Ophthalmic Photographer

Ocular Oncology Service
Wills Eye Institute
840 Walnut Street, 14th Floor
Philadelphia, Pa 19107

www.fighteyecancer.com


On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Peter Hay <peterhay@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Would anyone have a opinion of the autofluorescence imaging
>
> and capture back that OIS offers ?
>
>
> Peter
>
> _________________________
> Peter Hay,BA,CRA,FOPS
> Retina Vitreous Surgeons of CNY
> 3107 East Genesee Street
> Syracuse, NY, 13224
> peterhay@xxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Other related posts: