International Ophthalmology

, Volume 33, Issue 6, pp 635–643 | Cite as

Comparison of fundus autofluorescence images acquired by the confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope (488 nm excitation) and the modified Topcon fundus camera (580 nm excitation)

Original Paper


To compare autofluorescence (AF) images obtained with the confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope (using the Heidelberg retina angiograph; HRA) and the modified Topcon fundus camera, in a routine clinical setting. A prospective comparative study conducted at the Jules-Gonin Eye Hospital. Fifty-six patients from the medical retina clinic. All patients had complete ophthalmic slit-lamp and fundus examinations, colour and red-free fundus photography, AF imaging with both instruments, and fluorescein angiography. Cataract and fixation were graded clinically. AF patterns were analyzed for healthy and pathological features. Differences of image noise were analyzed by cataract grading and fixation. A total of 105 eyes were included. AF patterns discovered by the retina angiograph and the fundus camera images, respectively, were a dark optic disc in 72 % versus 15 %, a dark fovea in 92 % versus 4 %, sub- and intraretinal fluid visible as hyperautofluorescence on HRA images only, lipid exudates visible as hypoautofluorescence on HRA images only. The same autofluorescent pattern was found on both images for geographic atrophy, retinal pigment changes, drusen and haemorrhage. Image noise was significantly associated with the degree of cataract and/or poor fixation, favouring the fundus camera. Images acquired by the fundus camera before and after fluorescein angiography were identical. Fundus AF images differ according to the technical differences of the instruments used. Knowledge of these differences is important not only for correctly interpreting images, but also for selecting the most appropriate instrument for the clinical situation.


Fundus autofluorescence Scanning laser ophthalmoscope Heidelberg retina angiograph Topcon fundus camera Lipofuscin 


Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Funding: None. Financial disclosure. None


  1. 1.
    Delori FC, Dorey CK, Staurenghi G, Arend O, Goger DG, Weiter JJ (1995) In vivo fluorescence of the ocular fundus exhibits retinal pigment epithelium lipofuscin characteristics. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 36:718–729PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Von Ruckmann A, Fitzke FW, Bird AC (1995) Distribution of fundus autofluorescence with a scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Br J Ophthalmol 79:407–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Spaide R (2008) Autofluorescence from the outer retina and subretinal space: hypothesis and review. Retina 28:5–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bessho K, Gomi F, Harino S, Sawa M, Sayanagi K, Tsujikawa M et al (2009) Macular autofluorescence in eyes with cystoid macula edema, detected with 488 nm-excitation but not with 580 nm-excitation. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 247:729–734PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yamamoto M, Kohno T, Shiraki K (2009) Comparison of fundus autofluorescence of age-related macular degeneration between a fundus camera and a confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Osaka City Med J 55:19–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schmitz-Valckenberg S, Fleckenstein M, Gobel AP, Sehmi K, Fitzke FW, Holz FG et al (2008) Evaluation of autofluorescence imaging with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope and the fundus camera in age-related geographic atrophy. Am J Ophthalmol 146:183–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Waldstein SM, Hickey D, Mahmud I, Kiire CA, Charbel Issa P, Chong NV (2012) Two-wavelength fundus autofluorescence and macular pigment optical density imaging in diabetic macular oedema. Eye 26(8):1078–1085Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    The Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group (2001) The age-related eye disease study (AREDS) system for classifying cataracts from photographs: AREDS report no. 4. Am J Ophthalmol 131:167–175Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wustemeyer H, Jahn C, Nestler A, Barth T, Wolf S (2002) A new instrument for the quantification of macular pigment density: first results in patients with AMD and healthy subjects. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 240:666–671PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spaide RF (2003) Fundus autofluorescence and age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 110:392–399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fishkin N, Jang YP, Itagaki Y, Sparrow JR, Nakanishi K (2003) A2-rhodopsin: a new fluorophore isolated from photoreceptor outer segments. Org Biomol Chem 1:1101–1105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Framme C, Schule G, Birngruber R, Roider J, Schutt F, Kopitz J et al (2004) Temperature dependent fluorescence of A2-E, the main fluorescent lipofuscin component in the RPE. Curr Eye Res 29:287–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bui TV, Han Y, Radu RA, Travis GH, Mata NL (2006) Characterization of native retinal fluorophores involved in biosynthesis of A2E and lipofuscin-associated retinopathies. J Biol Chem 281:18112–18119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marmorstein AD, Marmorstein LY, Sakaguchi H, Hollyfield JG (2002) Spectral profiling of autofluorescence associated with lipofuscin, Bruch’s Membrane, and sub-RPE deposits in normal and AMD eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43:2435–2441PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Charbel Issa P, Singh MS, Lipinski DM, Chong NV, Delori FC, Bernard AR et al (2012) Optimization of in vivo confocal autofluorescence imaging of the ocular fundus in mice and its application to models of human retinal degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53:1066–1075PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ophthalmology Department of the University of LausanneJules-Gonin Eye HospitalLausanne 7Switzerland

Personalised recommendations