Feasibility Of A Smartphone-Based Imaging Modality For Corneal Pathologies (Sadeva)
Published 2025 - 43rd Congress of the ESCRS
Reference: PP06.16 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/j8wk-z855
Authors: Seth Michel Pantanelli* 1 , Zachary Landis 2 , Jeremy Kudrna 3 , Tara O'Rourke 1 , Erik Lehman 4 , Kathleen Scruggs 1 , Amy Longenecker 1
1Ophthalmology,Penn State College of Medicine,Hershey, PA,United States, 2Eye Associates of Lancaster,Lancaster, PA,United States, 3Guthrie Specialty Eye Care,Sayre, PA,United States, 4Public Health Sciences,Penn State College of Medicine,Hershey, PA,United States
Purpose
With the increasing demand for medical treatment in an aging society. Modern Inventions could assit in clinic routine and contribute to the advanvement of Telemedicine.
Comparison of the quality of images and diagnostic capabilities between a slit lamp and
a smartphone adapter-based eye examination tool.
Setting
Department of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Kepler University Clinic Linz, and Johannes
Kepler University, Linz, Austria
Patients were recruited in the corneal and emergency outpatient clinic of the Kepler University Clinic.
Methods
This single-center study included 100 patients with visible anterior eye segment
pathologies. All included eyes were photographed under slit lamp examination and
by the QuickVue Smartphone Eye Imaging Adaptor (Visuscience Meditech Co., LTD,
China).All slit-lamp and smartphone-based images were presented to two different corneal experts and
two residents in a randomized sequence. The pictures were evaluated, and a
suspected diagnosis and treatment option was documented. The results were compared
between the two devices and the two Observers, who evaluated whether there is a qualitative match or a
significant qualitative disagreement between the two. Furthermore, a comparison of
the feasibility of qualitatively diagnosable images was conducted.
Results
Corneal Specialist diagnosed 96.55% of cases correctly with the Slit lamp image vs.
82.76% for the Smartphone Adapter. Cochrans-Q showed no significant difference in
right diagnoses between the 2 devices with a p-value of 0.102. For the Resident
89.66% of cases were diagnosed correctly with the Slit lamp image vs. 62.07% with
the Smartphone Adapter (QV). Using Cochrans-Q this showed a significant
difference in correct diagnoses between the 2 groups with a p-value of 0.033. The
correct choice in therapy only using pictures was achieved in 72% of cases for the
Specialist and 62% for the Resident with a p of 1. However, this occured in different
cases. For an experienced specialist, diagnoses were possible even with lower
image quality.
Conclusions
They can be used very easily by doctors and non-ophthalmology professionals and
contribute to the advancement of telemedicine. A smartphone with an eye imaging
adaptor showed a similar image quality compared to a standardized slit lamp camera.
They have a high diagnostic ability in superficial corneal lesions i.e. trauma or foreign
bodies, in contrast to a reduced diagnostic ability in corneal dystrophies.