[optimal] Re: OIS autofluorescence imaging ?
- From: sandor ferenczy <sandorferenczy@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:17:11 -0400
Jim -
We just got v2 of the 1500 back about 6? months ago - we were able to
match the final image to the older camera.
-sandor
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:36 PM, James Strong <jamesdstrong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I wonder if OIS is still offering the same back 6 years later or if they've
> updated?
>
> Just puttin' it out there...
>
> j-
>
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:24 PM, sandor ferenczy <sandorferenczy@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> >
Other related posts:
