In our study, we developed an automated method to quantify binocular alignment, including the latent components of strabismus, using an infrared camera and a selective wavelength filter. Image analysis was performed with the 3D Strabismus Photo Analyzer, and the results showed excellent agreement with the PCT, which is the most common test for measuring binocular alignment. The PCT is performed manually and is measured subjectively by individual examiners, thus the reliability of those measurements depends on the proficiency of examiners and measurement errors.
13–15 Even the most experienced ophthalmologists applying the PCT have shown inconsistent responses up to 6 to 12 PD.
13 In addition, this variability also depends on patient factors, such as alertness and anxiety level at the time of examination, which can vary throughout the day, even within minutes.
16 These factors all lead to the inherent variability of clinical measurements and an isolated assessment of the magnitude of deviation can vary in a single patient.
17 Our automated method showed excellent agreement with the standard PCT, and test–retest reliability and interobserver variability also were comparable. Therefore, this method can be considered an accurate and reliable tool for measuring ocular deviation, which does not rely on the ability of the examiner.
The major benefits of using infrared images and a selective wavelength filter are as follows. Firstly, this method allows measuring the latent component of strabismus that only manifests after disruption of fusion, such as intermittent strabismus or dissociated deviation. The selective wavelength filter in front of the eye occludes the patient's view completely, and at the same time the 2D infrared photograph clearly shows the dynamic movements and details of the eye behind the occluder. Ocular deviations together with the details of the limbus, pupil, and the corneal light reflex behind the selective wavelength filter are visible with an infrared camera. Schiavi et al. also performed automated measurement of the angle of strabismus after dissociating the two eyes with an occluder using an infrared camera and image analyzer.
18 However, the position of the eye behind the occluder was obscured and latent components of strabismus could not be measured, which is the major difference from our method.
18 Secondly, the resolution and quality of the infrared images were not much affected by spectacle wear, and this is another major improvement from the previous version, which could not measure subjects wearing spectacles.
10 Finally, this method is simple and noninvasive. It requires minimal interpretation and can be implemented easily in normal clinical practice compared to eye tracking methods, such as scleral search coils or spectacle-mounted liquid crystal shutters.
11,12 It only takes 2 or 3 seconds to acquire a measurement, which is an advantage over the PCT, especially in children with limited cooperation. Every subject was tested successfully with this method except for children under 3 years of age, who could not tolerate the few seconds with an occluder placed in front of their eyes. Although not all children under 3 years of age were testable, we could acquire measurements successfully in a substantial number of subjects who did not cooperate with the PCT. An infrared video camera and selective filter also are inexpensive, and with the help of the image analysis software, this method can be applied in clinical practice.
The Bland-Altman plots for the selective filter test did not show consistent variability across the graph. Particularly in patients with an angle of ≥40 PD, there was a deviation toward a negative slope between 2 examiners. However, all values in this range lay within the 95% limits of agreement between 2 measurements (
Fig. 2B). As for the outliers, there were 3 outliers in the difference between PCT measurements and 1 outlier in the difference between selective filter tests, of whom all patients were esotropic. Regarding the previous report on the interobserver variability of the PCT in esotropic patients, the outliers (7.0, 8.5, 13 PD) lay at the boundaries of the 95% limits of agreement on a difference between 2 measurements; ±4.7 PD for angles of 10 to 20 PD and ±11.7 PD for angles greater than 20 PD, comparably.
13 In contrast, the only outlier in the difference between selective filter tests was a patient measured with the smallest angle of deviation (8 PD by the PCT). We presume that slightly asymmetric kappa angles between both eyes may be the cause of measurement errors by the 3D Strabismus Photo Analyzer in such small angles of deviation.
10
Linear regression slopes for exotropia (
B = 0.993) and esotropia (
B = 0.853) were different (Figs.
3A,
3B). The smaller value for esotropia can be interpreted that in esotropic patients, the absolute measurements with the selective filter and software were relatively smaller than the measurements with the PCT. Although the reason is not clear, it may be partly explained by the characteristics of the fixation target during measurements. During the PCT, subjects fixated on small accommodative objects at 1/3 meter. In contrast, small light targets were used during the selective filter analysis, because the luminance of the room was darkened. Light is sufficiently interesting to attract the patient's attention, but accommodation of the eye has little practical effect in changing the nonfocused condition of the stimulus on the retina, resulting in relaxation of accommodation.
19 Thus, light may induce less accommodation compared to small objects, resulting in reduction of accommodative convergence and the angle of esotropia. Conversely, for exotropia patients, less accommodation may induce a larger angle of exodeviation with the selective filter. Therefore, the difference in accommodative convergence induced by fixation targets may account for the difference between esotropia and exotropia patients.
One of the major limitations of this method is that the software is based on normative ophthalmic biometry.
10 Therefore, subjects who have extreme proportions falling out of the normal variation, such as high refractive errors, nanophthalmos, or pathologic myopia, cannot be examined using this program. In addition, the results are less accurate when it comes to large ranges of angular deviations of 50 PD or more, because of the exponential function during conversion between degrees and prism diopters. This method cannot be applied to patients with nystagmus, since the average position of the eye and corneal light reflex during oscillation cannot be determined with the current software. However, crude measurements are possible for now, with randomly captured images during oscillation. Torsional components also are not measurable, since the 3D Strabismus Photo Analyzer measures the position of the eye in horizontal and vertical vectors. Only the magnitude of horizontal and vertical strabismus can be measured separately.
In conclusion, infrared images acquired with a selective wavelength filter can be used to measure binocular alignment objectively with the 3D Strabismus Photo Analyzer. This is an accurate and reliable tool for measuring ocular deviation, and shows excellent agreement with the standard PCT.