Comparison between invasive and noninvasive techniques of evaluation of microvascular structural alterations

Abstract

Our data suggest that adaptive optics has a substantial advantage over SLDF in terms of evaluation of microvascular morphology, as WLR measured with adaptive optics is more closely correlated with the M/L of subcutaneous small arteries (r = 0.84, P < 0.001 vs. r = 0.52, P < 0.05, slopes of the relations: P < 0.01 adaptive optics vs. SLDF). In addition, the reproducibility of the evaluation of the WLR with adaptive optics is far better, as compared with SLDF, as intraobserver and interobserver variation coefficients are clearly smaller. This may be important in terms of clinical evaluation of microvascular morphology in a clinical setting, as micromyography has substantial limitations in its clinical application due to the local invasiveness of the procedure.