Clinical Observation of Choroidal Osteoma Using Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography and Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Remarks

Congratulations ! Very interesting and novel study. I have read it with pleasure. I have some minor remarks.

 

1. BCVA units – is it logMAR ? If decimals (Snellen), then arithmetic mean is not suitable. Please comment or covert the units.
2. Line 205 – please shortly explain how was the blood flow detected on OCTA (flow signal on the scans)

Author Response

Point 1: BCVA units – is it logMAR ? If decimals (Snellen), then arithmetic mean is not suitable. Please comment or covert the units.

Response 1: Thank you for your question and comment. We have converted BCVA units to logMAR. (Please check the first paragraph of the Results section and Table 1 in the revised manuscript)

Point 2: Line 205 – please shortly explain how was the blood flow detected on OCTA (flow signal on the scans)

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. OCTA detects blood flow by using motion contrast, computing the changes of OCT signals introduced by moving blood cells between repeated cross-sectional images (B-scan) at the same location.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presented the OCT/OCTA image of Choroidal Osteoma. For this, SS-OCT was used to image the choroidal layer. Although the results showed nice image quality, the manuscript is lack of proper description about the OCT system and the goal of this manuscript is not clear. The author claimed that the newly developed SS-OCT can show better choroidal Sattler’s layer and Haller’s layer. If so, it is better to compare with previous OCT/OCTA images. SS-OCT is well established device and not a new technique. The OCT/OCTA images of choroidal Sattler’s layer and Haller’s layer are already demonstrated. Also, special lens was used for the wide angle fundus view. But, there is no detailed description about this lens. For the all layer of choroidal vessels, unique three-dimensional spatial identification algorithm was developed. If so, please describe the details. The pupil was dilated for the imaging. Is there any reason for this? Because most of previous OCT imaging does not need pupil dilation. The transverse resolution is 10 µm and the interval between the scans is 15.625 µm. There will be the information miss due to this gap. And most of previous OCT has this interval as 10 µm and for the HD scanning, it below 10 µm. The acquisition time is about 11 seconds. It may cause the motion artifact. Most of commercial device has acquisition time below 5 seconds. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions! We have undergone English revisions for our manuscript and responded to your comments point-by-point. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors present a study on clinical observation of chroidal osteosarcoma using swept source OCT and OCA.

The manuscript is of interest and in general well structured. However they analyzed just a few patients and quantitative information from OCT and OCA analysis does not follow the presented results. Comments:

1. OCT and OCA images were segmented using both automatic and manual approaches. Image segmentation processing must be clearly described in Methods.
2. Authors do not show any quantitative calculation from image processing that allows the reader obtain more information that visual inspection.
3. Fig. 1 is not numbered and it is difficult to follow the results from the visualization of the images. It must be clearly described in the manuscript body.
4. Right column of Fig. 1 shows large images, it could be cropped to the region of interest only.
5. The manuscript seems to be observational, however Figs. 2-5 contain too much images making poor the visualization of details and image resolution.
6. How can be evaluated CO from your study? Explain.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions! We have responded to your comments point-by-point. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors addressed the comment to reviewer's report but did not correct the manuscript.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors addressed the comments well.

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.