A Scoping Review Of Three-Dimensional Ophthalmic Anatomy Smartphone Applications

Published 2022 - 40th Congress of the ESCRS

Reference: PP12.08 | Type: ESCRS 2022 - Posters | DOI: 10.82333/a7k8-b840

Authors: George Liu* ¹ , Hasan Naveed ² , Christopher Liu ³

¹Anglia Ruskin University School of Medicine,Chelmsford,United Kingdom;Tongdean Eye Clinic,Hove,United Kingdom, ²Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust,Maidstone,United Kingdom, ³Tongdean Eye Clinic,Hove,United Kingdom;Sussex Eye Hospital, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals, NHS Trust,Brighton,United Kingdom

Purpose

Patient education and understanding has been shown to improve outcomes by enabling engagement. Information relating to ophthalmic disease and surgery is often complex, pertaining to microanatomy of the eye and adnexa. The use of three-dimensional anatomical models in clinical consultations is one method that can improve patients’ understanding of their ophthalmic condition(s) and procedure(s).

Our research group surveyed the current app marketspace for virtual smartphone anatomical models that can be readily deployed in any ophthalmic clinic setting for the benefit of patients and clinicians alike.

Setting

An online review of the United Kingdom’s Google ‘Play Store’ and Apple ‘App Store’ based at Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, United Kingdom.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of Google’s ‘Play Store’ and Apple’s ‘App Store’ – the two most commonly used app stores – using the key term ‘eye anatomy’. Apps were excluded if they were not related to ophthalmology and if they did not offer a 3D function that could rotate 360°. All relevant apps were evaluated by three parameters: 3D Features, Highlights individual anatomical features, and Cost.

Results

The ‘Play Store’ generated 250 results of which 20 were relevant. The ‘App Store’ generated 211 results of which 12 were relevant. Between the ‘Play Store’ and ‘App Store’ there was an overlap of 7 apps. These apps offered a variety of 3D features including 360° rotation, X-ray and animation modes, and virtual/augmented/mixed reality options.

Of the relevant 25 Google and Apple apps, 76% (19/25) offered a function to highlight individual anatomical features. 32% (8/25) of these apps were free and the remaining 68% (17/25) had a price range from £0.89 to £36.62, averaging at £10.36 per app.

Conclusions

The availability of medical smartphone applications has proliferated over the past two decades. Whilst there is a wealth of applications available to aid ophthalmology anatomy learning, further improvements and content regulation from specialists is required to maintain a high standard of content. This study is the first to systematically evaluate smartphone apps within the context of ophthalmic anatomy.