Purchase this article with an account.
Giovanni Fogliato, Giuseppe Querques, Andrea Ramoni, Marco Codenotti, Lea Querques, Francesco Bandello; Indirect fundus biomicroscopy vs ultra-widefield retinography in the detection of peripheral retinal lesions. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):1644.
Download citation file:
© 2017 Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology.
The detection of peripheral retinal lesions is crucial in the management of eyes at risk of developing rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. California (Optos, Dunfermline, UK) is the latest imaging device that performs a ultra-widefield (200°) retinography. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the capability of California to detect peripheral retinal lesions, in comparison with indirect fundus biomicroscopy examination.
Prospective study of 40 consecutive eyes with peripheral retinal lesions referred to our Vitreoretinal Service, at the IRCCS San Raffaele in Milan, from September to November 2015. Each patient underwent indirect fundus biomicroscopy by two independent retinal specialists (observers 1 and 2), and ultra-widefield retinography evaluated by two other different retinal specialists (readers 3 and 4). For each eye the 4 specialists reported number, type and localization of retinal lesions. A comparison of collected data was performed between observers (1 vs 2) and readers (3 vs 4) and between observers and readers (1&2 vs 3&4).
Forty eyes of twenty patients were analyzed. Observer 1 reported a total of 126 lesions in 40 eyes (mean 3.15): 53 givres, 26 white without pressure (WWPs), 20 lattice degenerations (LDs), 14 retinal holes (RHs) and 13 retinal tears (RTs). Observer 2 reported 118 lesions (mean 2.95): 50 givres, 23 WWPs, 19 LDs, 13 RHs and 13 RTs. Reader 3 reported 115 lesions (mean 2.87): 51 givres, 20 WWPs, 18 LDs, 13 RHs and 13 RTs. Reader 4 reported 114 lesions (mean 2.85): 50 givres, 20 WWPs, 18 LDs, 13 RHs and 13 RTs. No type and localization differences were reported among specialists. About the number of lesions, the comparison between indirect fundus biomicroscopy observers (1 vs 2) and between ultra-widefield retinography readers (3 vs 4) revealed good accordance using the same technique. No significant difference was reported between observers (1&2) vs readers (3&4) (P>0.05).
No significant difference between specialists was reported using the same technique, neither between the two groups of specialists using different exams. Our results suggest good reproducibility of both the techniques and non inferiority of California ultra-widefield (200°) retinography compared with traditional indirect fundus examination in detecting peripheral retinal lesions.
This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only