Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Am J Ophthalmol. 2012 Sep;154(3):549-559.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2012.03.019. Epub 2012 May 23.

Nonmydriatic ultrawide field retinal imaging compared with dilated standard 7-field 35-mm photography and retinal specialist examination for evaluation of diabetic retinopathy.

Author information

  • 1Beetham Eye Institute, Joslin Diabetes Center, and the Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA. paoloantonio.silva@joslin.harvard.edu

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To compare nonmydriatic stereoscopic Optomap ultrawide field images with dilated stereoscopic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study 7-standard field 35-mm color 30-degree fundus photographs (ETDRS photography) and clinical examination for determining diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME) severity.

DESIGN:

Single-site, prospective, comparative, instrument validation study.

METHODS:

One hundred three diabetic patients (206 eyes) representing the full spectrum of DR severity underwent nonmydriatic ultrawide field 100-degree and 200-degree imaging, dilated ETDRS photography, and dilated fundus examination by a retina specialist. Two independent readers graded images to determine DR and DME severity. A third masked retina specialist adjudicated discrepancies.

RESULTS:

Based on ETDRS photography (n = 200), the results were as follows: no DR (n = 25 eyes [12.5%]), mild nonproliferative DR (NPDR; 47 [23.5%]), moderate NPDR (61 [30.5%]), severe NPDR (11 [5.5%]), very severe NPDR (3 [1.5%]), and proliferative DR (52 [2.5%]). One (0.5%) eye was ungradable and 6 eyes did not complete ETDRS photography. No DME was found in 114 eyes (57.0%), DME was found in 28 eyes (14.0%), and clinically significant DME was found in 47 eyes (23.5%), and 11 (5.5%) eyes were ungradable. Exact DR severity agreement between ultrawide field 100-degree imaging and ETDRS photography occurred in 84%, with agreement within 1 level in 91% (K(W) = 0.85; K = 0.79). Nonmydriatic ultrawide field images exactly matched clinical examination results for DR in 70% and were within 1 level in 93% (K(W) = 0.71; K = 0.61). Nonmydriatic ultrawide field imaging acquisition time was less than half that of dilated ETDRS photography (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS:

Nonmydriatic ultrawide field images compare favorably with dilated ETDRS photography and dilated fundus examination in determining DR and DME severity; however, they are acquired more rapidly. If confirmed in broader diabetic populations, nonmydriatic ultrawide field imaging may prove to be beneficial in DR evaluation in research and clinical settings.

Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PMID:
22626617
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk