Comparison of the efficacy of three direct ophthalmoscopes: a clinical study

Abstract

Retinal examination using direct ophthalmoscope is preferred over other techniques for screening purposes because of its portability and high magnification, despite its power sustainability and cost issues. With increasing number of low-cost sustainable devices available in the market, it is important to assess the efficacy of the devices. We compared three devices - Arclight ophthalmoscope, a D-Eye attached to iPhone 6, and conventional ophthalmoscope Heine K180 - in terms of ease of examination, usage, field of view, color rendition, patient comfort, length of examination, and closeness to the eye. Two trained optometrists examined 26 undilated eyes and graded the ease of retinal examination, ease of use and assessed vertical cup:disc ratio (VCDR). Patients reported their comfort level in terms of glare produced by the light source, length of examination and closeness to the eye. The examiners had a good agreement for all assessments. Of 26 eyes, VCDR assessment was not possible in 10/26 (38.4%) of the examinations, in (3/26, 11.5%) examinations with Arclight, in 0/26 examinations with D-Eye. Ease of use score was higher for Arclight and D-Eye than Heine. D-Eye had a relatively larger field of view than other 2 devices. Heine ranked first in color rendition. The luminance level of the high-beam setting of Arclight was more than twice that of Heine and D-Eye. Despite that, the patients reported experiencing uncomfortable glare in Heine (14/26, 53.8%), significant glare with Arclight (16/26, 61.5%) and some/no glare with D-Eye. The examination time was shorter when using D-Eye. Overall, D-Eye scored better in most of the evaluation items followed by Arclight.