June 2020
Volume 61, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2020
Validating the use of a Stereoscopic Robotized Teleophthalmic Drone Slit Lamp
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Gabriela Lahaie Luna
    Department of Ophthalmology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
  • Jean-Marie A Parel
    Bascom palmer Eye institute, MIami, Florida, United States
  • Alex Gonzalez
    Bascom palmer Eye institute, MIami, Florida, United States
  • Cornelis Rowan
    Bascom palmer Eye institute, MIami, Florida, United States
  • Wilma Hopman
    Department of Ophthalmology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
  • Martin tenHove
    Department of Ophthalmology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Gabriela Lahaie Luna, None; Jean-Marie Parel, None; Alex Gonzalez, None; Cornelis Rowan, None; Wilma Hopman, None; Martin tenHove, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  N/A
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2020, Vol.61, 1845. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Gabriela Lahaie Luna, Jean-Marie A Parel, Alex Gonzalez, Cornelis Rowan, Wilma Hopman, Martin tenHove; Validating the use of a Stereoscopic Robotized Teleophthalmic Drone Slit Lamp. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2020;61(7):1845.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Validation of a mechanized remotely operated stereoscopic drone slit lamp in assessing anterior segment pathology compared to a conventional slit lamp.

Methods : Patients meeting the study inclusion criteria were recruited from eye clinics at Hotel Dieu Hospital in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Two independent examiners assessed anterior chamber (AC) depth and presence or absence of cells and/or flare of each patient first using the drone slit lamp, followed by conventional slit lamp. Qualitative data was collected on the ability to assess corneal integrity, foreign bodies, epithelial defects, stromal infiltrates and conjuctival injection using the drone slit lamp.

Results : Forty-eight eyes of 42 participants were examined using both the drone slit lamp and conventional slit lamp. No significant within-examiner differences in AC depth or cell were detected. There was substantial agreement between the drone slit lamp and conventional slit lamp when assessing AC cell and flare (κ=72.6 and κ =60.4, respectively) and moderate agreement when assessing AC depth (κ=42.5). The drone slit lamp compared to conventional slit lamp had a sensitivity and specificity of 98.3% (95% CI= 94-100) and 100% (95% CI= (98.7-100) respectively, for detecting AC cell. The drone slit lamp had sensitivity and specificity of 100% (95% CI= 97.5-100) and 88.2% (95% CI= 80.2-96.1) respectively for detecting AC flare.

Conclusions : To our knowledge this study is the first to attempt to validate the use of a mechanized remotely operated stereoscopic drone slit lamp on human subjects. There was substantial agreement between the drone slit lamp and conventional slit lamp when assessing AC depth, cell and flare. Sensitivity and specificity for assessing these findings ranged from 88.2% to 100%. This drone slit lamp provides excellent capability for examination of anterior segment pathology in live patients when compared to a conventional slit lamp.

This is a 2020 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.

 

Image 1. Drone slit lamp (DSL)

Image 1. Drone slit lamp (DSL)

 

Image 2. Still images captured from drone slit lamp (DSL) A. view focused on cornea, B. view focused on AC, C. large corneal ulcer with hypopyon, D. HVS dendrite, E. corneal infiltrate, F. partial thickness corneal laceration, G. corneal scar, H. Corneal metal foreign body

Image 2. Still images captured from drone slit lamp (DSL) A. view focused on cornea, B. view focused on AC, C. large corneal ulcer with hypopyon, D. HVS dendrite, E. corneal infiltrate, F. partial thickness corneal laceration, G. corneal scar, H. Corneal metal foreign body

×
×

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.

×