Use of ImageJ as an image processing method for the assessment of post-surgical bruises.

PURPOSE: To develop, through ImageJ, an automated, non-invasive, objective method to analyze images of bruises that allowed quantifying variation in its size overtime for its later use in clinical trials. METHODS: The ImageJ software was used to create automated macros that were executed on 38 images of the untreated eyes of 19 patients that participated in a post-marketing, randomized, controlled clinical trial that assessed the efficacy of a cream to reduce post-blepharoplasty minor hematomas. Three image processing systems were used with the macros created with ImageJ: RGB, RGB2, and HSB. The area of the bruises and the percentage of reduction were estimated for each one. Ophthalmologists also reviewed photographs by direct visual examination. RESULTS: All three processing systems were useful for identifying the area of the bruise and studying its variation over time. RGB2 results were the most consistent with the direct visual examination conducted by ophthalmologists. CONCLUSION: RGB2-automated image processing was considered the most appropriate for bruise analysis and represented an advantage over other manual techniques. However, it will be necessary to test it in clinical trials and other studies with a more significant number of samples and different locations.

Assessment and safety of the new esthesiometer BRILL: Comparison with the Cochet-Bonnet Esthesiometer.

BACKGROUND: Corneal sensitivity can decrease by several ocular conditions, such as dry eye or refractive surgery, which favor ocular epithelial lesions and is measured using an esthesiometer. The study's primary objective was to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the non-contact esthesiometer BRILL, which delivers air pulses to the corneal surface to assess corneal sensitivity. METHODS: A single-center, prospective, controlled pilot study was carried out in adult patients with healthy eyes and or with pathology. Corneal sensitivity measurements were made in triplicate for both eyes at three consecutive visits. The esthesiometer BRILL was used in all visits, and on the last visit, the contact esthesiometer Cochet-Bonnet was also used. The results of both devices were compared by transforming them into force values. RESULTS: 54 subjects with a mean age of 50.43 (SD 16.55, interval 18-87), 77.78% women, were included. Comparing the forces applied by both esthesiometers in the healthy eyes, in the eyes with pathology in all the groups, and in the dry eyes showed significant differences, p = 0.03603, p = 0.00614, and p = 0.0001, respectively. CONCLUSION: The BRILL esthesiometer proved to be an effective and safe tool for non-contact assessment of corneal sensitivity with operator-independent repeatability. The measurements had a good agreement and comparable range with the Cochet-Bonet aesthesiometer measurements in healthy and dry eyes but with no interchangeable values. This portable device can help ophthalmologists and optometrists to diagnose eye pathologies that cause decreased corneal sensitivity and to assess the efficacy of therapy and disease progression.