Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Validating the use of a stereoscopic robotized teleophthalmic drone slit lamp.
Lahaie Luna, Gabriela; Parel, Jean-Marie; Gonzalez, Alex; Hopman, Wilma; Rowaan, Cornelis; Khimdas, Sarit; Hove, Martin Ten.
Affiliation
  • Lahaie Luna G; Department of Ophthalmology, Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont.
  • Parel JM; Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Ophthalmic Biophysics Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL.
  • Gonzalez A; Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Ophthalmic Biophysics Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL.
  • Hopman W; Department of Ophthalmology, Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont.
  • Rowaan C; Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Ophthalmic Biophysics Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL.
  • Khimdas S; Niagara Health System, Welland, Ont.
  • Hove MT; Department of Ophthalmology, Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont.. Electronic address: tenhove@queensu.ca.
Can J Ophthalmol ; 56(3): 191-196, 2021 06.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33164766
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

To validate the use of a mechanized remotely operated stereoscopic drone slit lamp (DSL) in assessing anterior segment pathology in ophthalmology patients compared with conventional slit lamp (CSL).

METHODS:

Patients were recruited from eye clinics at Hotel Dieu Hospital in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Each patient was assessed by 2 examiners. Examiners consisted of ophthalmology residents and staff attendings. Each examiner assessed the anterior chamber (AC) depth, presence or absence of cells, and/or presence of flare of the patient first using the DSL, followed by CSL. Qualitative data were collected on the ability to assess corneal integrity, infiltrates, foreign bodies, epithelial defects, and conjunctival injection using the DSL.

RESULTS:

48 eyes of 42 participants were examined using the DSL and CSL. No significant within-examiner differences in AC depth or cell were detected. There was substantial agreement between the DSL and CSL when assessing AC cell and flare (κ = 72.6 and κ = 60.4, respectively) and moderate agreement when assessing AC depth (κ = 42.5). The DSL compared with CSL had a sensitivity and specificity of 98.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 94-100) and 100% (95% CI 98.7-100), respectively, for detecting AC cell. The DSL had sensitivity and specificity of 100% (95% CI 97.5-100) and 88.2% (95% CI 80.2-96.1), respectively, for detecting AC flare.

CONCLUSIONS:

There was substantial agreement between the DSL and CSL when assessing AC depth, cell, and flare. Sensitivity and specificity for assessing these findings ranged from 88.2% to 100%. This DSL provides excellent capability for examination of anterior segment pathology in live patients, performing similarly to a CSL.
Subject(s)

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Ophthalmology / Slit Lamp Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Qualitative_research Limits: Humans Country/Region as subject: America do norte Language: En Journal: Can J Ophthalmol Year: 2021 Document type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Ophthalmology / Slit Lamp Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Qualitative_research Limits: Humans Country/Region as subject: America do norte Language: En Journal: Can J Ophthalmol Year: 2021 Document type: Article