Differences in fundus autofluorescence in clinical practice

• Published in: Acta ophthalmologica (Oxford, England) Vol. 89; no. s248
• Main Author: BARBAZETTO, I
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.09.2011; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Atrophy; Edema; Epithelium; Inflammation; Macular degeneration; Retina; Retinal pigment epithelium
• ISSN: 1755-375X; 1755-3768
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2011.3316.x

Purpose Fundus autofluorescence (AF) has become a standard imaging test for evaluating retinal disorders such as age‐related macular degeneration, hereditary, and inflammatory conditions. Little attention has been given to the influence of technical specifications of individual imaging devices and their potential influence on the studies obtained. Methods AF was recorded using a Heidelberg confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope (cSLO) with 488 nm laser exciter (488 nm‐AF), and a conventional Topcon fundus camera with halogen lamp exciter and 580 nm band‐pass filter (580 nm‐AF). Images of patients with various macular conditions were obtained and compared. Results The autofluorescent signal is largely believed to derive from lipofuscein in the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) and to represent a correlate of cellular metabolic activity. However, while images of geographic atrophy appeared to be rather comparable, significant differences were noted in patients with central serous chorioretinopathy, rip of the RPE and cystoids macular edema. It has been hypothesized that macular pigments (MPs) and more precisely changes of MPs density account in part for the differences, as MPs block 488nm‐AF more intensely than 580nm‐AF. Conclusion Fundus autofluorescence images obtained with different imaging systems may not be interchangeable depending on the exciter and band‐pass filters used. Caution has to be taken when comparing diagnostic or therapeutic findings on AF from imaging devices with different specifications