Table 2. Comparison of bimodal imaging (combined OCT and fcSLO) and ophthalmoscopy for in vivo evaluation of subretinal cell-based transplants in rodents.
| Assessment |
Ophthalmoscopy |
OCT |
fcSLO |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| d0 | Serial | d0 | Serial | d0 | Serial | |
| Subretinal graft presence | i | − | + | +C | +C | +C |
| Graft fundus position | − | − | + | + | + | + |
| Graft architecture | − | − | + | + | + | + |
| Microscopic indicators of host-site inflammation | − | − | + | + | − | − |
| Host trauma | + | + | + | + | − | − |
| Graft survivalM | − | − | − | − | + | + |
Abbreviation: i, implied effectiveness. Effective (+) or ineffective (−) assessment. Effective when data from both OCT and fcSLO are combined (C) if expressed fluorescence is used, as this indicates that live graft is present. Efficacy most evident (M) if expressed fluorescence is used; however, the loss of graft-loaded fluorescence (eg, QT) in the host eye clearly indicates graft loss in that region.