6
70
5
14 nm is the Rodenstock. However, this instrument has ences [12]. However, our method for the calculation of
several limitations: (1) it takes a long time (e.g., 30 s) to test-retest reproducibility is slightly different form that
switch between the different wavelengths, resulting in used by Delori et al. Using the same calculation our test-
artifacts due to eye movements and misalignment; (2) retest differences would be 3.1%.
the linearity of the video amplifier cannot be achieved;
As expected, our measurements show that healthy
(
3) the signal to noise ratio is poor; and (4) the quality of subjects have a statistically significant higher MPD than
the video signal is poor (e.g., non-standard PAL or the studied subgroup of patients with dry AMD. In com-
NTSC). These limitations prompted us to develope a parison with the results Delori et al. obtained with the re-
new instrument for MP measurement. This instrument is flectance method, our mean MPD for healthy subjects is
based on the confocal SLO (HRA, Heidelberg Engineer- lower, but ranges within a comparable magnitude. Delori
ing). Compared with previous measurements with a stan- and colleagues found a MPD of 0.23±0.07 DU in a pop-
dard SLO (Rodenstock) the new instrument has several ulation of 159 subjects without ocular pathology aged
advantages: (1) The instrument allows a very fast switch 16–80 years (mean age 52±17 years) [12]. The compari-
between the different wavelengths (488 nm and 514 nm); son between the absolute numbers of Delori et al. and
(
2) the images are directly digitized, (3) the signal to our results presented here should be valid. However, an
noise ratio is improved, and (4) the linearity of the video accurate comparison is possible only after examining the
amplifier is assured. same patient with both tools. Points of differentiation
Our method to measure MPD noninvasively with a can be the definition of the fovea, resulting in a slightly
modified confocal SLO utilizes the differential absor- different positioning of the test field, and subtle differ-
bance of reflected light at 488 nm (well absorbed by MP) ences in the alignment of the instrument.
and 514 nm (minimally absorbed by MP) and thus obtain
Our findings demonstrate that measurement of MP
a double-pass measure of the optical density of the MP. density with the new instrument leads to results consis-
As with all methods to measure MP, we estimate the tent with previous studies. The modified confocal SLO
MPD from comparison of foveal and parafoveal mea- has shown to be a useful device for quantifying MPD
surements, minimizing the influence of spectral charac- and can in future be used in the clinical routine. No
teristics of the underlying tissues, of the ocular media, training sessions to make patients familiar with the tech-
and of the instrument. The intraindividual coefficient of nique’s requirements are necessary. In a few minutes we
variation of 6.2% demonstrates a good reproducibility of are able to obtain high-quality images to quantify MPD.
MPD measurements with our method. This variation This will allow us to perform large-scale prospective
shows that our method is at least as stable as the method studies in patients with different stages of ARM to eluci-
used by Delori et al., who found 9–22% test-retest differ- date the role of MPD in the pathogenesis of AMD.
References
1
. Beatty S, Boulton M, Henson D,
Koh HH, Murray IJ (1999) Macular
pigment and age related macular de-
generation. Br J Ophthalmol:867–877
. Beatty S, Murray IJ, Henson DB,
Carden D, Koh H, Boulton ME (2001)
Macular pigment and risk for age-relat-
ed macular degeneration in subjects
from a Northern European population.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42:439–446
. Berendschot TT, Goldbohm RA,
Klopping WA, van de Kraats J, van
Norel J, van Norren D (2000) Influence
of lutein supplementation on macular
pigment, assessed with two objective
techniques. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
4. Bird AC, Bressler NM, Bressler SB,
Chisholm IH, Coscas G, Davis MD, de
Jong PTVM, Klaver CCW, Klein BEK,
Klein R, Mitchell P, Sarks JP,
8. Bressler NM, Bressler SB, West SK,
Fine SL, Taylor HR (1989) The grad-
ing and prevalence of macular degener-
ation in Chesapeake Bay watermen.
Arch Ophthalmol 107:847–852
9. Challa JK, Gillies MC, Penfold PL
(1998) Exsudative degeneration an dit-
ravitreal triamcinolone: 18 month fol-
low up. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol
26:277–281
10. Dagnelie G, Zorge IS, McDonald TM
(2000) Lutein improves visual function
in some patients with retina degenera-
tion: a pilot study via the internet. Op-
tometry 71:147–164
11. De La Paz MA, Anderson RE (1992)
Lipid peroxidation in rod outer seg-
ments. Role of hydroxyl and lipid hy-
droperoxides. Invest Ophthalmol Vis
Sci 33:2091–2096
2
Sarks SH, Soubrane G, Taylor HR,
Vingerling JR (1995) An international
classification and grading system for
age-related maculopathy and age-relat-
ed macular degeneration. Surv
Ophthalmol 39:367–374
3
5. Bone RA, Landrum JT, Fernandez L,
Tarsis SL (1988) Analysis of the macu-
lar pigment by HPLC: retinal distribut
age study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
29:843–849
6. Bone RA, Landrum JT, Mayne ST,
Gomez CM, Tibor SE, Twaroska EE
4
1:3322–3326
(
2001) Macular pigment in donor eyes
with and without AMD: a case-control
study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
4
2:235–240
7
. Bressler NM, Bressler SB (1995) Pre-
ventative Ophthalmology Age-related
macular degeneration. Ophthalmology
1
02:1206–1211