[optimal] Re: OIS autofluorescence imaging ?
- From: Ray Gardner <raygardner99@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:49:46 -0500
Not sure since they were bought out by Merge Healthcare.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 27, 2012, at 2:36 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:
