Rw. Flower et al., DISPARITY BETWEEN FUNDUS CAMERA AND SCANNING LASER OPHTHALMOSCOPE INDOCYANINE GREEN IMAGING OF RETINAL-PIGMENT EPITHELIUM DETACHMENTS, Retina, 18(3), 1998, pp. 260-268
Purpose: Indocyanine green (ICG) angiograms of each of five patients w
ith retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) detachments were made using first
a Topcon fundus camera and then a Heidelberg scanning laser ophthalmo
scope (SLO); for each patient, both types of angiograms were obtained
on the same day. In each case, the serous fluid appeared bright throug
hout the fundus camera studies and dark throughout the SLO studies. Th
is study sought to explain the disparity in the appearance of the lesi
ons in the two kinds of images and to determine whether there was dye
in the serous fluid. Methods: Simple model eyes were constructed to de
monstrate the effects of Mie light scatter and integrating sphere beha
vior of the sclera on ICG image formation by the fundus camera and SLO
optics. Analysis was made of both the clinical angiograms and model e
ye images to structure an explanation for the disparate RPE detachment
angiographic images. Results: Indocyanine green fluorescent light fro
m choroidal vessels adjacent to the lesions and scattered by the turbi
d serous fluid accounted for the lesion brightness seen in the fundus
camera images. The models confirmed that SLOs suppress scattered light
. Conclusions: The apparent fluorescence of serous fluid beneath RPE d
etachments in fundus camera early-phase ICG angiogram images is not at
tributable to the presence of dye; rather, it appears to be attributab
le to serous fluid light scatter of fluorescent light arising from adj
acent fluorescent structures. This light scatter is a consequence of t
he fundus camera illumination and recording optics and is not present
in SLO-generated images. The necessity of understanding such phenomena
as absorption, diffraction, polarization, and scatter of light and ro
utinely applying them to ICG angiogram interpretation is underscored w
hen it is shown that they offer simple explanations for unusual or une
xpected angiographic results, as in the case of the patients with RPE
detachment discussed here.