
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
<title>Photobleaching</title>
<link>https://www.opsweb.org/forums/posts.aspx?topic=1319126</link>
<description></description>
<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2026 13:16:39 GMT</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:08:29 GMT</pubDate>
<copyright>Copyright &#xA9; 2016 Ophthalmic Photographers&apos; Society</copyright>
<atom:link href="https://www.opsweb.org/forums/topic_rss.asp?id=1319126" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link>
<item>
<title>Photobleaching</title>
<link>https://www.opsweb.org/forums/posts.aspx?topic=1319126</link>
<guid>https://www.opsweb.org/forums/posts.aspx?topic=1319126</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<p>I have pondered the JAMA Ophthalmology article "Photobleaching by Spectralis Target"</p>
<p>in the September issue for awhile. &nbsp;Thirty eyes of fifteen young (AVG 24) healthy volunteers</p>
<p>were exposed to 9.7 seconds of SD OCT with Spectralis. Following the faux exam, ALL eyes</p>
<p>demonstrated a cross shaped increase in macular autofluorescence on FAF/BAF. &nbsp;The</p>
<p>cross was visible on infrared and multicolor. &nbsp;Variable intensity of the image. &nbsp;Disappeared</p>
<p>after ten minutes. &nbsp;Not reproducible with Cirrus and Avanti at increased exposure times.</p>
<p>I AM NOT KIDDING.&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>So...is this significant &nbsp;for interpretation. &nbsp;Retina here unimpressed. &nbsp;Take a look.</p>
<p>I would be interested to know what our photobleaching experts (You know who</p>
<p>you are) think. &nbsp;I have resisted all "sign of the cross" references.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre;">			</span>Kirby</p>]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:52:30 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>https://www.opsweb.org/forums/posts.aspx?topic=1319192</link>
<guid>https://www.opsweb.org/forums/posts.aspx?topic=1319192</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Interesting article Kirby. I wonder if it's a finding specific to their particular unit or could it be more universal? I haven't noticed that artifact with our Spectralis OCT units, but ours are older and the internal fixation light is a single blue dot rather than the cross. <br /><br />I might have to do a selfie or two on the Spectralis to see if our fixation light has the same bleaching effect.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2016 22:18:48 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>https://www.opsweb.org/forums/posts.aspx?topic=1319530</link>
<guid>https://www.opsweb.org/forums/posts.aspx?topic=1319530</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<p>I took a close look at some of our images today and also did some additional testing. No sign of a bleaching artifact on any of our FAF images. But again our units have a single dot internal blue fixation light.<br />
<br />
Earlier this year we had a loaner unit from Heidelberg for about 6 weeks. It had the cross-shaped internal fixation light and several of our regular patients commented on it being brighter than our usual one. I was curious to see if I could find evidence of the cross artifact in images taken with that loaner unit and went back and identified all FAF images taken with that unit, Again, I don't see any bleaching artifacts.</p>
<p>Below is an FAF image from that unit taken right after extensive OCT imaging using the cross shaped internal fixation light.</p>
<p>I'm wondering if the authors of the article had a device with a fixation light that's abnormally bright?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2016 20:08:29 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
