Purchase this article with an account.
JILI CHEN; Comparison of the performance of four Fundus Cameras in clinical practice. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2019;60(9):6121.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To evaluate the performance of the newest ultra-widefield fundus camera CLARUS 500 from Zeiss by comparing the images captured by four fundus cameras in clinical practice.
Nonmydriatic fundus photographs of 17 patients with different ocular diseases were taken by four fundus cameras: Topcon TRC-NW300, Canon CX-1, Optos Daytona plus and Zeiss CLARUS 500. The fundus photographs were evaluated and scored by three independent retinal imaging experts according to grading protocol which included these qualitative parameters: (1) retinal color reproduction (1 = accurate, 0 = some accurate, -1 = not accurate); (2) image clarity (1 = vessel good distinguishable, 0 = middle, -1 = vessel barely/not); (3) field of view (1 = over 45° field of view, 0 = full 45° field of view, -1 = less 45° field of view); (4) penetration of opacity (1 = good, 0 = middle, -1 = poor); (5) small pupil imaging (1 = without vignetting, 0 = mild vignetting, -1 = apparent vignetting); (6) operator ease of use and patient comfort (1 = easy and comfortable, 0 = middle, -1 = difficult and uncomfortable). After inter-grader reliability assessment, a consensus grading was performed and the fundus cameras were ranked based on their scoring.
The ranking of each retinal camera varied depending on the parameter evaluated. For retinal color reproduction, Topcon, Canon and Zeiss were superior compared to Optos. As for image clarity, the posterior pole vessels were best appreciable on Zeiss and Canon. And mid-peripheral and peripheral blood vessels were significantly clearer on Zeiss than Optos. However, ultra-widefield fundus camera, Optos and Zeiss, were superior to Topcon and Canon on field of view. This was also true on penetration of opacity, and Zeiss was better than Optos. In the case of small pupil imaging, Topcon, Canon and Optos were bothered by vignetting, excluding Zeiss. As ultra-widefield imaging system, both Opots and Zeiss were easy to use, whereas Zeiss were more comfortable for patients. In the overall ranking, the Zeiss was superior and in 90% better than the median (Bonferroni corrected p-value = 0.04). Optos was better than the median in 60%, Canon in 40% and Topncon in 10%.
Each of the evaluated fundus camera has particular strengths. And the newest ultra-widefield fundus imaging system Zeiss can provide true color high-resolution ultra-widefield image, which is helpful to screening and diagnosis.
This abstract was presented at the 2019 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Vancouver, Canada, April 28 - May 2, 2019.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only