Muth DR, Blaser F, Foa N, Scherm P, Mayer WJ, Barthelmes D, Zweifel SA. Smartphone Slit Lamp Imaging-Usability and Quality Assessment.
Diagnostics (Basel) 2023;
13:diagnostics13030423. [PMID:
36766528 PMCID:
PMC9913954 DOI:
10.3390/diagnostics13030423]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2022] [Revised: 01/16/2023] [Accepted: 01/17/2023] [Indexed: 01/26/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE
To assess the usability and image quality of a smartphone adapter for direct slit lamp imaging.
METHODS
A single-center, prospective, clinical study conducted in the Department of Ophthalmology at the University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland. The smartphone group consisted of 26 medical staff (consultants, residents, and students). The control group consisted of one ophthalmic photographer. Both groups took images of the anterior and the posterior eye segment of the same proband. The control group used professional photography equipment. The participant group used an Apple iPhone 11 mounted on a slit lamp via a removable SlitREC smartphone adapter (Custom Surgical GmbH, Munich, Germany). The image quality was graded independently by two blinded ophthalmologists on a scale from 0 (low) to 10 (high quality). Images with a score ≥ 7.0/10 were considered as good as the reference images. The acquisition time was measured. A questionnaire on usability and experience in smartphone and slit lamp use was taken by all of the participants.
RESULTS
Each participant had three attempts at the same task. The overall smartphone quality was 7.2/10 for the anterior and 6.4/10 for the posterior segment. The subjectively perceived difficulty decreased significantly over the course of three attempts (Kendall's W). Image quality increased as well but did not improve significantly from take 1 to take 3. However, the image quality of the posterior segment was significantly, positively correlated (Spearman's Rho) with work experience. The mean acquisition time for anterior segment imaging was faster in the smartphone group compared to the control group (156 vs. 206 s). It was vice versa for the posterior segment (180 vs. 151 s).
CONCLUSION
Slit lamp imaging with the presented smartphone adapter provides high-quality imaging of the anterior segment. Posterior segment imaging remains challenging in terms of image quality. The adapter constitutes a cost-effective, portable, easy-to-use solution for recording ophthalmic photos and videos. It can facilitate clinical documentation and communication among colleagues and with the patient especially outside normal consultation hours. Direct slit lamp imaging allows for time to be saved and increases the independence of ophthalmologists in terms of patient mobility and the availability of photographic staff.
Collapse