Optic nerve assessment with stereo photographs and ultra-widefield scanning laser ophthalmoscope images.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY Clinical and Experimental Optometry Pub Date : 2024-12-19 DOI:10.1080/08164622.2024.2438132
Patricia Salazar, Ashley Speilburg, Anne Rozwat, Michael Chaglasian, Daniel Roberts, Christina Morettin, Janice McMahon, Michael Sinai
{"title":"Optic nerve assessment with stereo photographs and ultra-widefield scanning laser ophthalmoscope images.","authors":"Patricia Salazar, Ashley Speilburg, Anne Rozwat, Michael Chaglasian, Daniel Roberts, Christina Morettin, Janice McMahon, Michael Sinai","doi":"10.1080/08164622.2024.2438132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Clinical evaluation of the optic nerve using 3-D stereo disc photographs is considered the gold standard for estimating vertical cup-to-disc ratios. Ultra-widefield retinal imaging has gained increasing popularity to document and screen the health of the retina and optic nerve.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Glaucoma is often first identified or suspected based on initial optic nerve assessment. Despite technological advancements in imaging, stereo disc photography remains the gold standard of optic nerve assessment. This study compared vertical cup-to-disc ratio (VCDR) estimations using ultra-widefield scanning laser ophthalmoscopy images with estimations using paired stereo disc images.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-five healthy and 35 glaucomatous eyes were imaged using Zeiss VISUCAM® PRO NM and Optos Monaco® (optomap®) [Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office] devices. Four experienced clinicians assessed each image in a masked fashion and graded the VCDR. Stereo viewers and review software tools were used to determine VCDRs. Bland-Altman plots and regression/correlation analyses were used to check VCDR agreement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Bland-Altman analyses showed low mean differences between devices with VCDR estimation for each grader (-0.03, +0.01, -0.02, and +0.03). Difference vs. means plots suggest stable differences across the range of measurement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>VCDR estimations were comparable using optomap® images and VISUCAM® PRO NM stereo optic disc images.</p>","PeriodicalId":10214,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Optometry","volume":" ","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Optometry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08164622.2024.2438132","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Clinical relevance: Clinical evaluation of the optic nerve using 3-D stereo disc photographs is considered the gold standard for estimating vertical cup-to-disc ratios. Ultra-widefield retinal imaging has gained increasing popularity to document and screen the health of the retina and optic nerve.

Background: Glaucoma is often first identified or suspected based on initial optic nerve assessment. Despite technological advancements in imaging, stereo disc photography remains the gold standard of optic nerve assessment. This study compared vertical cup-to-disc ratio (VCDR) estimations using ultra-widefield scanning laser ophthalmoscopy images with estimations using paired stereo disc images.

Methods: Thirty-five healthy and 35 glaucomatous eyes were imaged using Zeiss VISUCAM® PRO NM and Optos Monaco® (optomap®) [Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office] devices. Four experienced clinicians assessed each image in a masked fashion and graded the VCDR. Stereo viewers and review software tools were used to determine VCDRs. Bland-Altman plots and regression/correlation analyses were used to check VCDR agreement.

Results: Bland-Altman analyses showed low mean differences between devices with VCDR estimation for each grader (-0.03, +0.01, -0.02, and +0.03). Difference vs. means plots suggest stable differences across the range of measurement.

Conclusions: VCDR estimations were comparable using optomap® images and VISUCAM® PRO NM stereo optic disc images.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
视神经评估的立体照片和超宽视场扫描激光检眼镜图像。
临床相关性:使用三维立体视盘照片对视神经进行临床评估被认为是估计垂直杯盘比的金标准。超宽视场视网膜成像在记录和筛查视网膜和视神经健康方面越来越受欢迎。背景:青光眼通常是基于最初的视神经评估而被发现或怀疑的。尽管在成像技术的进步,立体光盘摄影仍然是视神经评估的黄金标准。本研究比较了使用超宽视场扫描激光检眼镜图像估计的垂直杯盘比(VCDR)与使用配对立体盘图像估计的VCDR。方法:使用蔡司VISUCAM®PRO NM和Optos Monaco®(optomap®)[已在美国专利和商标局注册]设备对35只健康眼和35只青光眼进行成像。四名经验丰富的临床医生以蒙面方式评估每张图像并对VCDR进行评分。使用立体声观察器和复查软件工具来确定vcdr。使用Bland-Altman图和回归/相关分析来检查VCDR一致性。结果:Bland-Altman分析显示,每个分级的VCDR估计设备之间的平均差异很低(-0.03,+0.01,-0.02和+0.03)。差值图与平均值图表明在测量范围内存在稳定的差异。结论:使用optomap®图像和VISUCAM®PRO NM立体视盘图像进行VCDR估计具有可比性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.30%
发文量
132
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Experimental Optometry is a peer reviewed journal listed by ISI and abstracted by PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Science Citation Index and Current Contents. It publishes original research papers and reviews in clinical optometry and vision science. Debate and discussion of controversial scientific and clinical issues is encouraged and letters to the Editor and short communications expressing points of view on matters within the Journal''s areas of interest are welcome. The Journal is published six times annually.
期刊最新文献
Low-luminance visual acuity and low-luminance deficit: optimising measurement and analysis. Ocular allergy and quality of life in a regional Australian optometry practice. Optical coherence tomography and pentacam imaging of concurrent keratoconus and granular corneal dystrophy. Evaluating ocular health in retinal gene therapies. Advancing optometric education through peer-reviewed publication: innovations and insights for the future.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1