Hyunkyoo Kang1, Sang Jae Lee2, Hyun Jin Shin3, Andrew G Lee4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11. 1. Department of Mechatronics and Electronic Engineering, Konkuk University Glocal Campus, Chungcheongbuk-do, Republic of Korea. 2. School of Medicine, Konkuk University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Research Institute of Medical Science, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Blanton Eye Institute, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, United States of America. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States of America. 6. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, United States of America. 7. Department of Ophthalmology, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America. 8. Department of Ophthalmology, Texas A and M College of Medicine, College Station, Texas, United States of America. 9. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa. 10. Department of Ophthalmology, Baylor College of Medicine and the Center for Space Medicine, Houston, TX, United States of America. 11. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, United States of America.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the variations in ocular torsion measurements made using different fundus photographic methods. METHODS: We enrolled subjects with three conditions: (1) patients with intermittent exotropia (IXT) (n = 44), (2) patients with unilateral superior oblique palsy (SOP) (n = 10), and (3) normal subjects as controls (n = 85). Ocular torsion was measured by disc-center-fovea angle (DFA) using three different imaging modalities: (1) conventional fundus photography (CFP) with a 45° field of view (FV), (2) wide-field fundus photography (WFP) with a 200° FV, and (3) optical coherence tomography (OCT) with a 55° FV. RESULTS: In the IXT group, the DFAs in the right and left eyes were 5.70±3.35° and 6.37±3.36°, respectively, for CFP, 8.39±5.24° and 8.61±3.67° for WFP, and 5.73±3.61° for 6.16±3.50° for OCT. In the SOP group, the DFAs in paretic and nonparetic eyes were 12.19±1.69° and 6.71±1.09°, respectively, for CFP, 14.29±2.36° and 8.23±3.31° for WFP, and 12.12±1.73° and 6.91±1.12° for OCT. In the control group, the DFAs in the right and left eyes were 5.39±2.65° and 5.71±3.16°, respectively, for CFP, 8.77±5.56° and 8.90±6.24° for WFP, and 5.27±2.67° and 5.72±3.20° for OCT. There was no difference between the results from CFP and OCT among the three groups. However, the torsional angle was larger when measured using WFP than the other two photographic methods (CFP and OCT) in all three groups (all p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The ocular torsion measurement varies with the fundus photographic method used to measure it. Clinicians should be careful to avoid overestimating ocular extorsion when it is evaluated using WFP.
PURPOSE: To compare the variations in ocular torsion measurements made using different fundus photographic methods. METHODS: We enrolled subjects with three conditions: (1) patients with intermittent exotropia (IXT) (n = 44), (2) patients with unilateral superior oblique palsy (SOP) (n = 10), and (3) normal subjects as controls (n = 85). Ocular torsion was measured by disc-center-fovea angle (DFA) using three different imaging modalities: (1) conventional fundus photography (CFP) with a 45° field of view (FV), (2) wide-field fundus photography (WFP) with a 200° FV, and (3) optical coherence tomography (OCT) with a 55° FV. RESULTS: In the IXT group, the DFAs in the right and left eyes were 5.70±3.35° and 6.37±3.36°, respectively, for CFP, 8.39±5.24° and 8.61±3.67° for WFP, and 5.73±3.61° for 6.16±3.50° for OCT. In the SOP group, the DFAs in paretic and nonparetic eyes were 12.19±1.69° and 6.71±1.09°, respectively, for CFP, 14.29±2.36° and 8.23±3.31° for WFP, and 12.12±1.73° and 6.91±1.12° for OCT. In the control group, the DFAs in the right and left eyes were 5.39±2.65° and 5.71±3.16°, respectively, for CFP, 8.77±5.56° and 8.90±6.24° for WFP, and 5.27±2.67° and 5.72±3.20° for OCT. There was no difference between the results from CFP and OCT among the three groups. However, the torsional angle was larger when measured using WFP than the other two photographic methods (CFP and OCT) in all three groups (all p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The ocular torsion measurement varies with the fundus photographic method used to measure it. Clinicians should be careful to avoid overestimating ocular extorsion when it is evaluated using WFP.
Authors: Matthew Ryan Tan; Jorge Serrador; Jamie Perin; Yoav Gimmon; Jennifer Millar; Kelly Brewer; Dan Gold; Michael C Schubert Journal: J Assoc Res Otolaryngol Date: 2022-03-22