RESUMO
Purpose: To describe the construction and diagnostic accuracy of a modularized, virtual reality (VR)-based, pupillometer for detecting relative afferent pupillary defect (RAPD) in unilateral optic neuropathies, vis-à-vis, clinical grading by experienced neuro-ophthalmologists. Methods: Protocols for the swinging flashlight test and pupillary light response analysis used in a previous stand-alone pupillometer was integrated into the hardware of a Pico Neo 2 Eye® VR headset with built-in eye tracker. Each eye of 77 cases (mean ± 1SD age: 39.1 ± 14.9yrs) and 77 age-similar controls were stimulated independently thrice for 1sec at 125lux light intensity, followed by 3sec of darkness. RAPD was quantified as the ratio of the direct reflex of the stronger to the weaker eye. Device performance was evaluated using standard ROC analysis. Results: The median (25th - 75th quartiles) pupil constriction of the affected eye of cases was 38% (17 - 23%) smaller than their fellow eye (p<0.001), compared to an interocular difference of +/-6% (3 - 15%) in controls. The sensitivity of RAPD detection was 78.5% for the entire dataset and it improved to 85.1% when the physiological asymmetries in the bilateral pupillary miosis were accounted for. Specificity and the area under ROC curve remained between 81 - 96.3% across all analyses. Conclusions: RAPD may be successfully quantified in unilateral neuro-ophthalmic pathology using a VR-technology-based modularized pupillometer. Such an objective estimation of RAPD provides immunity against biases and variability in the clinical grading, overall enhancing its value for clinical decision making.
RESUMO
Purpose: To assess the agreement of retinoscope-based peripheral refraction techniques with the criterion standard open-field autorefractor. Methods: Fifty young adults (mean age, 24 ± 3 years) participated in this study. Two masked, experienced senior examiners carried out central refraction and peripheral refraction at the temporal 22° (T22°) and nasal 22° (N22°) eccentricities. Peripheral refraction techniques were (a) peripheral refraction using ancillary retinoscope component (P-ARC), (b) retinoscopy with eye rotation, and (c) open-field autorefractor. Peripheral refraction with retinoscopy values was compared with an open-field autorefractor (Shinn Nippon NVision-K) to assess the agreement. All measurements were taken from the right eye under noncycloplegic conditions. Results: The mean difference ±95% limits of agreement of peripheral refraction values obtained using P-ARC from T22° (+0.11 diopters [D] ± 1.20 D; P = 0.20) or N22° (+0.13 D ± 1.16 D; P = 0.13) were comparable with open-field autorefractor. The eye rotation technique compared to autorefractor showed a significant difference for T22° (+0.30 D ± 1.26 D; P = 0.002); however, there was an agreement for N22° (+0.14 D ± 1.16 D; P = 0.10). With respect to the identification of peripheral refraction patterns, examiners were able to identify relative peripheral hyperopia in most of the participants (77%). Conclusions: Peripheral refraction with P-ARC was comparable with open-field autorefractor at T22° and N22° eccentricities. Peripheral retinoscopy techniques can be another approache for estimating and identifying peripheral refraction and its patterns in a regular clinical setting. Translational Relevance: Retinoscope with P-ARC has high potential to guide and enable eye care practitioners to perform peripheral refraction and identify peripheral refraction patterns for effective myopia management.