June 2017
Volume 58, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2017
Smartphone-based optic nerve head evaluation: mydriasis is what makes the difference
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Maximilian W.M. Wintergerst
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
  • Christian Karl Brinkmann
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
  • Robert P. Finger
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Maximilian Wintergerst, Carl Zeiss Meditec (F), Carl Zeiss Meditec (R); Christian Brinkmann, Carl Zeiss Meditec (F), Carl Zeiss Meditec (R); Robert Finger, Carl Zeiss Meditec (F), Carl Zeiss Meditec (R)
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2017, Vol.58, 3973. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Maximilian W.M. Wintergerst, Christian Karl Brinkmann, Robert P. Finger; Smartphone-based optic nerve head evaluation: mydriasis is what makes the difference. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2017;58(8):3973.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To assess whether smartphone-based optic nerve head (ONH) evaluation is equivalent to conventional digital fundus photography (CFP).

Methods : 50 eyes with glaucoma or suspected to have glaucoma were imaged with CFP (Visucam 500, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) and smartphone-based fundus photography (SBFP) using the D-Eye adapter (D-EYE S.r.l., Padova, Italy) with a Galaxy S4 (Samsung Electronics, Seoul, South Korea). SBFP was performed both undilated and following dilation. CFP was performed following dilation. Both image modalities were compared in regards to evaluation of vertical cup-to-disc ratio (CDR), ISNT rule, neuroretinal rim pallor (NRP), image quality and completeness of ONH visualization. All images were pseudonymized and graded by two blinded graders. Data were analyzed descriptively.

Results : CDR measurements on images obtained following dilation highly correlated with measurements on CFP (mean CDR on CFP=0.79, mean CDR on SBFP with dilation=0.76; r=0.76, p<0.0001), whereas CDR was underestimated on images obtained without dilation and correlated less well with CFP (mean CDR on SBFP without dilation=0.70; r=0.54, p=0.0003). Better image quality on smartphone-based fundus photographs was achieved with dilation (median = 4 vs. 3, respectively, on a scale from 0 to 5; p<0.0001). SBFP NRP evaluation on images following dilation showed a stronger correlation with evaluation on CFP (r=0.51 and r=0.30, respectively). ISNT rule evaluation was possible in 72% of images obtained without dilation and on 98% of images following dilation. Complete visualization of the ONH was possible in 46% of images without dilation and on 94% of images with dilation.

Conclusions : Smartphone-based fundus photography for ONH evaluation is promising, however dilation is necessary to achieve results comparable to optic disc evaluation on CFP. ONH imaging with smartphones without dilation bears for example the risk of underestimating the CDR and hence overlooking a patient at risk for glaucoma.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2017 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Baltimore, MD, May 7-11, 2017.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×