Susmit Das1,2, Helen J Kuht2,3, Ian De Silva3, Sundeep S Deol3, Lina Osman3, Joyce Burns3, Nagini Sarvananthan3, Usman Sarodia3, Bharat Kapoor3, Tahir Islam3, Raghavan Sampath3, Alicia Poyser3, Vasileios Konidaris3, Rossella Anzidei3, Frank A Proudlock2, Mervyn G Thomas4,5. 1. Leicester Medical School, College of Life Sciences, University of Leicester, George Davis Centre, 15 Lancaster Rd, Leicester, LE1 7HA, UK. 2. Department of Neuroscience, Psychology and Behaviour, The University of Leicester Ulverscroft Eye Unit, University of Leicester, RKCSB, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, LE1 5WW, UK. 4. Department of Neuroscience, Psychology and Behaviour, The University of Leicester Ulverscroft Eye Unit, University of Leicester, RKCSB, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK. mt350@le.ac.uk. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, LE1 5WW, UK. mt350@le.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Handheld fundus cameras are portable and cheaper alternatives to table-top counterparts. To date there have been no studies comparing feasibility and clinical utility of handheld fundus cameras to table-top devices. We compare the feasibility and clinical utility of four handheld fundus cameras/retinal imaging devices (Remidio NMFOP, Volk Pictor Plus, Volk iNview, oDocs visoScope) to a table-top camera (Zeiss VisucamNM/FA). SUBJECTS/ METHODS: Healthy participants (n = 10, mean age ± SD = 21.0 ± 0.9 years) underwent fundus photography with five devices to assess success/failure rates of image acquisition. Participants with optic disc abnormalities (n = 8, mean age ± SD = 26.8 ± 15.9) and macular abnormalities (n = 10, mean age ± SD = 71.6 ± 15.4) underwent imaging with the top three scoring fundus cameras. Images were randomised and subsequently validated by ophthalmologists masked to the diagnoses and devices used. RESULTS: Image acquisition success rates (100%) were achieved in non-mydriatic and mydriatic settings for Zeiss, Remidio and Pictor, compared with lower success rates for iNview and oDocs. Image quality and gradeability were significantly higher for Zeiss, Remidio and Pictor (p < 0.0001) compared to iNview and oDocs. For cup:disc ratio estimates, similar levels of bias were seen for Zeiss (-0.09 ± SD:0.15), Remidio (-0.07 ± SD:0.14) and Pictor (-0.05 ± SD:0.16). Diagnostic sensitivities were highest for Zeiss (84.9%; 95% CI, 78.2-91.5%) followed by Pictor (78.1%; 95% CI, 66.6-89.5%) and Remidio (77.5%; 95% CI, 65.9-89.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Remidio and Pictor achieve comparable results to the Zeiss table-top camera. Both devices achieved similar scores in feasibility, image quality, image gradeability and diagnostic sensitivity. This suggests that these devices potentially offer a more cost-effective alternative in certain clinical scenarios.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Handheld fundus cameras are portable and cheaper alternatives to table-top counterparts. To date there have been no studies comparing feasibility and clinical utility of handheld fundus cameras to table-top devices. We compare the feasibility and clinical utility of four handheld fundus cameras/retinal imaging devices (Remidio NMFOP, Volk Pictor Plus, Volk iNview, oDocs visoScope) to a table-top camera (Zeiss VisucamNM/FA). SUBJECTS/ METHODS: Healthy participants (n = 10, mean age ± SD = 21.0 ± 0.9 years) underwent fundus photography with five devices to assess success/failure rates of image acquisition. Participants with optic disc abnormalities (n = 8, mean age ± SD = 26.8 ± 15.9) and macular abnormalities (n = 10, mean age ± SD = 71.6 ± 15.4) underwent imaging with the top three scoring fundus cameras. Images were randomised and subsequently validated by ophthalmologists masked to the diagnoses and devices used. RESULTS: Image acquisition success rates (100%) were achieved in non-mydriatic and mydriatic settings for Zeiss, Remidio and Pictor, compared with lower success rates for iNview and oDocs. Image quality and gradeability were significantly higher for Zeiss, Remidio and Pictor (p < 0.0001) compared to iNview and oDocs. For cup:disc ratio estimates, similar levels of bias were seen for Zeiss (-0.09 ± SD:0.15), Remidio (-0.07 ± SD:0.14) and Pictor (-0.05 ± SD:0.16). Diagnostic sensitivities were highest for Zeiss (84.9%; 95% CI, 78.2-91.5%) followed by Pictor (78.1%; 95% CI, 66.6-89.5%) and Remidio (77.5%; 95% CI, 65.9-89.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Remidio and Pictor achieve comparable results to the Zeiss table-top camera. Both devices achieved similar scores in feasibility, image quality, image gradeability and diagnostic sensitivity. This suggests that these devices potentially offer a more cost-effective alternative in certain clinical scenarios.
Authors: Carly Stewart; Josephine Coffey-Sandoval; Erik A Souverein; Tiffany C Ho; Thomas C Lee; Sudha Nallasamy Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2022-09-01