Comment on Rosa et al. Optic Nerve Drusen Evaluation: A Comparison between Ultrasound and OCT. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 3715
1
Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine, Midwestern University, Downers Grove, IL 60515, USA
2
Chicago College of Optometry, Midwestern University, Downers Grove, IL 60515, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(17), 5607; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12175607
Submission received: 10 February 2023
/
Accepted: 23 August 2023
/
Published: 28 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Ophthalmology)
We read with interest the paper by Rosa et al., entitled “Optic Nerve Drusen Evaluation: A Comparison between Ultrasound and OCT”, published in June of 2022 [1]. We agree with the authors on the importance of distinguishing optic disc drusen (ODD) from optic disc edema. However, we draw attention to Figures 3 and 4, which do not seem to represent the enhanced depth imaging (EDI) capacity of optical coherence tomography (OCT).
While the Methods of this article state that the enhanced-depth mode was used for the cross-sectional imaging of the optic discs, this claim is contradicted by the appearance of both OCT figures in the paper, neither of which bears the features of enhanced-depth imaging, such as a visible choroid-scleral junction. This might explain the group's finding of 51% sensitivity for EDI-OCT—a number which is more similar to the pre-EDI-era accuracy of OCT relative to ultrasound [2].
The authors also limit the diagnosis of ODD to ultrasound findings in their definition, which assumes a 100% accuracy for this modality and does not establish a basis for an objective comparison with OCT in statistical analysis [3]. The authors refer to b-scan ultrasound as the “gold-standard” for ODD diagnosis, which differs from the most recent recommendation of the ODDS consortium [4].
We note a further departure from the ODDS consortium in the Results, wherein peripapillary hyper-reflective ovoid mass-like structures (PHOMS) are described as markers for ODD. PHOMS can be found in several conditions (including the main differential, papilledema), most of which have no relationship with optic disc drusen [5].
We recommend further study, including but not limited to the utilization of the enhanced depth features of EDI-OCT, before conclusions are drawn on the ability of b-scan ultrasound to outperform OCT.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors, K.J.S. and F.T.C., declare no commercial associations (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with this manuscript.
References
- Rosa, N.; De Bernardo, M.; Abbinante, G.; Vecchio, G.; Cione, F.; Capasso, L. Optic Nerve Drusen Evaluation: A Comparison between Ultrasound and OCT. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 3715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Flores-Rodríguez, P.; Gili, P.; Martín-Ríos, M.D. Sensitivity and specificity of time-domain and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography in differentiating optic nerve head drusen and optic disc oedema. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 2012, 32, 213–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rajagopal, R.; Mitchell, E.; Sylvester, C.; Lope, L.A.; Nischal, K.K. Detection of Optic Disc Drusen in Children Using Ultrasound through the Lens and Avoiding the Lens-Point of Care Ultrasound Technique of Evaluation Revisited. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Malmqvist, L.; Bursztyn, L.; Costello, F.; Digre, K.; Fraser, J.A.; Fraser, C.; Katz, B.; Lawlor, M.; Petzold, A.; Sibony, P.; et al. The Optic Disc Drusen Studies Consortium Recommendations for Diagnosis of Optic Disc Drusen Using Optical Coherence Tomography. J. Neuroophthalmol. 2018, 38, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Malmqvist, L.; Sibony, P.A.; Fraser, C.L.; Wegener, M.; Heegaard, S.; Skougaard, M.; Hamann, S. Optic Disc Drusen Studies Consortium. Peripapillary Ovoid Hyperreflectivity in Optic Disc Edema and Pseudopapilledema. Ophthalmology 2018, 125, 1662–1664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Schimmelbusch, K.J.; Collison, F.T. Comment on Rosa et al. Optic Nerve Drusen Evaluation: A Comparison between Ultrasound and OCT. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 3715. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 5607. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12175607
AMA Style
Schimmelbusch KJ, Collison FT. Comment on Rosa et al. Optic Nerve Drusen Evaluation: A Comparison between Ultrasound and OCT. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 3715. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(17):5607. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12175607
Chicago/Turabian StyleSchimmelbusch, Kurt J., and Frederick T. Collison. 2023. "Comment on Rosa et al. Optic Nerve Drusen Evaluation: A Comparison between Ultrasound and OCT. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 3715" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 17: 5607. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12175607
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
