Blue light versus green light fundus autofluorescence in normal subjects and in patients with retinochoroidopathy secondary to retinal and uveitic diseases

• Main Authors: Millena Gomes Bittencourt, Muhammad Hassan, Muhammad Sohail Halim, Rubbia Afridi, Nam V. Nguyen, Carlos Plaza, Anh N. T. Tran, Mohamed Ibrahim Ahmed, Quan Dong Nguyen, Yasir Jamal Sepah
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: SpringerOpen 2019-01-01
• Series: Journal of Ophthalmic Inflammation and Infection
• Subjects: Retinal imaging; Fundus autofluorescence; Autofluorescence imaging; Blue-light autofluorescence; Green-light autofluorescence
• Online Access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12348-018-0167-2

Abstract Purpose The aim of this study is to evaluate the differences in the fundus autofluorescence (FAF) signal between the blue light autofluorescence (BAF) from Spectralis® (Heidelberg, CA) and green light autofluorescence (GAF) 200TxTM (OPTOS, UK, in normal subjects and in patients with retinochoroidopathies (RC). Methods In this prospective study, FAF was performed using BL (λ = 488 nm) and GL (λ = 532 nm) on normal subjects and patients with RC. The corresponding pairs of BAF and GAF images from both groups were analyzed using Photoshop. The strength of the FAF signal was measured on a gray scale, where optic disc was a standard to indicate absence of AF. In addition, gray values obtained from three identical points (foveal center, and points of hypo and hyper autofluorescence) in the corresponding BAF and GAF images of normal and RC subjects were divided by the optic disc value to calculate autofluorescence signal ratio (R). The R values at fovea (R1), hypoautofluorescent point (R2), and hyperautofluorescent point (R3) were compared between BAF and GAF modalities, in normal and in RC subjects separately. Results One hundred six pairs (106 eyes) of FAF images analyzed (37 pairs: normal and 69 pairs: RC subjects). In normal subjects, the mean R1, R2, and R3 values for BAF were (1.5 ± 0.88, 1.23 ± 0.58, and 4.73 ± 2.85, respectively) and for GAF were (0.78 ± 0.20, 0.78 ± 0.20, and 1.62 ± 0.39, respectively). Similarly, in subjects with RC, the mean R1, R2, and R3 values for BAF were (1.68 ± 1.02, 1.66 ± 1.15, and 7.75 ± 6.82, respectively) and for GAF were (0.95 ± 0.59, 0.79 ± 0.45, and 2.50 ± 1.65, respectively). The mean difference in the R1, R2, and R3 ratios between BAF and GAF in normal and in RC subjects was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The strength of the correlation (r) between ratios for BAF and GAF was weak or not statistically significant in both normal and RC subjects (p > 0.05). Conclusion The distribution and intensity of the AF signal differ in BAF and GAF and cannot be used interchangeably. In BAF, optic disc signal is always weaker than in other areas, which was not true for GAF where optic disc signal was stronger than fovea and hypoautofluorescent point in both groups.