Recent News

I want to be clear from the outset that I did not ask to become knowledgeable about optical coherence tomography platforms. It simply happened to me, in the way that most expertise does; gradually, and then with a crushing sense of responsibility.

Before I continue, a note: the opinions that follow are entirely my own, formed through experience and a perhaps unhealthy amount of time spent reading spec sheets. They are not sponsored, not endorsed, and not intended to suggest that any of these platforms is objectively inferior. The right machine for a practice depends on budget, available space, patient population, workflow, software needs, and at least four other variables I’ll probably think of at 2am. There is no universally wrong answer here. There are only different answers, and I will now describe them with what I hope you’ll agree is an almost unreasonable level of generosity.

There are four names that matter. Zeiss. Heidelberg. Topcon. Nidek.

Zeiss and the Cirrus line represent what I would call the “reliable colleague” of OCT platforms. Not the most exciting person at the conference dinner, but one who shows up, performs consistently, and, crucially, does not require you to relearn everything when they get a haircut. The Cirrus 6000 processes nearly 100,000 A-scans per second and occupies a surprisingly modest footprint, which is, I think we can agree, admirable restraint for a machine that costs somewhere between the price of a sensible car and a slightly indulgent house. In my personal experience, the Zeiss also edges ahead on accuracy; the measurements feel dependable in a way that quietly builds clinical confidence over time. That said, and I offer this not as a condemnation but as a practical observation, when it does go wrong, it tends to go wrong for longer. Repair downtime has, in my experience, been a more protracted affair than with some of its competitors. The user interface, too, is functional rather than fleet-footed; not unpleasant, but not what I would describe as zippy. The AngioPlex module produces excellent OCT-A images, though the software modules do cost extra, as do most things worth having. The one architectural criticism I will level is that the PC is built into the unit itself, meaning a malfunction requires servicing the whole machine rather than simply replacing the relevant component. A design choice that I can only describe as optimistic.

Heidelberg’s Spectralis is the machine that other machines are quietly envious of, particularly when it comes to retinal imaging, where it is, in my view, genuinely outstanding. In academic and research circles it is essentially the gold standard, which it knows, and which is reflected in the pricing. The TruTrack eye-tracking system locks follow-up scans to the precise retinal location of the original, making longitudinal comparison genuinely reliable rather than approximately hopeful. For glaucoma, however, I will confess it has left me wanting on occasion; not disastrously, but enough to notice. Where it does redeem itself is in the ease with which you can coax a viable result from it; it is, in my experience, more forgiving in that regard than its complexity might suggest. The BMO-MRW metric is clinically excellent when you need it, but for glaucoma-heavy practices it may not be the first tool you reach for. The learning curve for technicians is steep, and two identical units can differ in price by fifteen to twenty thousand dollars depending on which software modules are installed. A fact I find both impressive and slightly alarming.

Topcon, with the Triton and Maestro2, has taken the admirable position of asking: what if the machine simply did more things? The Triton is, as far as I am aware, the only swept-source OCT on a genuinely multimodal platform, combining colour fundus photography, autofluorescence, fluorescein angiography, and OCT in a single unit. This is either elegant integration or an ambitious amount of responsibility to place in one piece of hardware, depending on your outlook. The 1050nm wavelength offers better penetration through media opacities such as cataracts, which is useful given that the patient demographic for these machines tends to skew toward people who have cataracts. The Maestro2, meanwhile, does alignment, focus, and capture in a single touch, the kind of workflow efficiency that makes you slightly emotional if you’ve ever spent significant time coaxing a less cooperative instrument.

Nidek (and I say this with genuine warmth) is the platform that does not need you to like it. It is, in my experience, the most affordable of the group, and it combines OCT with fundus photography and fundus autofluorescence in a way that represents genuinely good value for the outlay. It adds OCTA functionality via software update rather than hardware replacement, which is the kind of sensible decision-making that should be more common. The microperimetry overlay capability, correlating functional data directly onto OCT images, is useful and not something you’ll find elsewhere without significant additional expenditure. And in my experience, when something does go wrong, it tends to come back faster; repair downtime has been noticeably less of an ordeal than with some of the more prestigious names on this list. Yes, the scan speed is slower. Yes, the normative database is smaller. Yes, it is less likely to impress visiting academics. But for a practice working within real-world budget and space constraints that would still like to, you know, actually see the retina, it is a thoroughly legitimate choice, and I respect it enormously.

In summary: the best OCT is the one that fits your clinical needs, your floor plan, your budget, and the patience threshold of your technicians. These are my opinions on how each platform performs against those criteria; formed honestly, held lightly, and offered in the hope that they are marginally more useful than reading the brochures.

You are welcome.