TY - JOUR
T1 - Validating the use of a stereoscopic robotized teleophthalmic drone slit lamp
AU - Lahaie Luna, Gabriela
AU - Parel, Jean Marie
AU - Gonzalez, Alex
AU - Hopman, Wilma
AU - Rowaan, Cornelis
AU - Khimdas, Sarit
AU - Hove, Martin ten
N1 - Funding Information:
Bascom Palmer Eye Institute (DAMD-W81XWH-09-1-0675); DOD Warfighters (W81XWH-13-1-0048); NIH Center Grant (P30EY14801); Florida Lions Eye Bank and Beauty of Sight Foundation; Drs. K.R. Olsen and M.E. Hildebrandt; Drs. Raksha Urs and Aaron Hurtado; an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness to the Department of Ophthalmology; and the Henri and Flore Lesieur Foundation (J.M.P.). The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article. The University of Miami submitted 3 patent applications (WO 2013/081619, WO 2013/105915, and US 62/812,685) in which J.M. Parel, A. Gonzalez, and C. Rowaan are co-inventors.
Funding Information:
Bascom Palmer Eye Institute (DAMD-W81XWH-09-1-0675); DOD Warfighters (W81XWH-13-1-0048); NIH Center Grant (P30EY14801); Florida Lions Eye Bank and Beauty of Sight Foundation; Drs. K.R. Olsen and M.E. Hildebrandt; Drs. Raksha Urs and Aaron Hurtado; an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness to the Department of Ophthalmology; and the Henri and Flore Lesieur Foundation (J.M.P.).
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - Objective: To validate the use of a mechanized remotely operated stereoscopic drone slit lamp (DSL) in assessing anterior segment pathology in ophthalmology patients compared with conventional slit lamp (CSL). Methods: Patients were recruited from eye clinics at Hotel Dieu Hospital in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Each patient was assessed by 2 examiners. Examiners consisted of ophthalmology residents and staff attendings. Each examiner assessed the anterior chamber (AC) depth, presence or absence of cells, and/or presence of flare of the patient first using the DSL, followed by CSL. Qualitative data were collected on the ability to assess corneal integrity, infiltrates, foreign bodies, epithelial defects, and conjunctival injection using the DSL. Results: 48 eyes of 42 participants were examined using the DSL and CSL. No significant within-examiner differences in AC depth or cell were detected. There was substantial agreement between the DSL and CSL 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 DSL compared with CSL had a sensitivity and specificity of 98.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 94-100) and 100% (95% CI 98.7-100), respectively, for detecting AC cell. The DSL 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: There was substantial agreement between the DSL and CSL when assessing AC depth, cell, and flare. Sensitivity and specificity for assessing these findings ranged from 88.2% to 100%. This DSL provides excellent capability for examination of anterior segment pathology in live patients, performing similarly to a CSL.
AB - Objective: To validate the use of a mechanized remotely operated stereoscopic drone slit lamp (DSL) in assessing anterior segment pathology in ophthalmology patients compared with conventional slit lamp (CSL). Methods: Patients were recruited from eye clinics at Hotel Dieu Hospital in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Each patient was assessed by 2 examiners. Examiners consisted of ophthalmology residents and staff attendings. Each examiner assessed the anterior chamber (AC) depth, presence or absence of cells, and/or presence of flare of the patient first using the DSL, followed by CSL. Qualitative data were collected on the ability to assess corneal integrity, infiltrates, foreign bodies, epithelial defects, and conjunctival injection using the DSL. Results: 48 eyes of 42 participants were examined using the DSL and CSL. No significant within-examiner differences in AC depth or cell were detected. There was substantial agreement between the DSL and CSL 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 DSL compared with CSL had a sensitivity and specificity of 98.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 94-100) and 100% (95% CI 98.7-100), respectively, for detecting AC cell. The DSL 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: There was substantial agreement between the DSL and CSL when assessing AC depth, cell, and flare. Sensitivity and specificity for assessing these findings ranged from 88.2% to 100%. This DSL provides excellent capability for examination of anterior segment pathology in live patients, performing similarly to a CSL.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85095605382&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85095605382&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jcjo.2020.10.005
DO - 10.1016/j.jcjo.2020.10.005
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85095605382
JO - Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology
JF - Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology
SN - 0008-4182
ER -