The Arclight vs. traditional ophthalmoscope: a cross-over trial

Fundoscopy in the smartphone age: current ophthalmoscopy methods in neurology

The observation of the human retina in vivo began in 1851 after the invention of the first ophthalmoscope by the German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz. In the following decades, direct and indirect ophthalmoscopy, with the use of ophthalmoscopes and condensing lenses, respectively, became part of the clinical examination, especially in ophthalmology and neurology. Today, over 170 years later, many ophthalmoscopes and condensing lenses exist on the market. Nevertheless, ophthalmoscopy is still not widely adopted as part of the physical exam of general practitioners, and the teaching of ophthalmoscopy in medical school remains challenging. Studies have shown that students prefer using newer ophthalmoscope models or condensing lenses during training, but most do not feel confident in performing ophthalmoscopy afterwards, regardless of the models used. Also, few students acquire ophthalmoscopes for their future practice, and clinical trials have not clearly demonstrated superiority of newer ophthalmoscope models over the conventional ones in diagnostic accuracy. The technological improvement of smartphone cameras in recent years has made it feasible to photograph the fundus of the eye using ophthalmoscopes or condensing lenses, reducing the need for retinographs and similar equipment. Smartphone assisted indirect fundoscopy is becoming increasingly popular. This approach allows adequate identification of the structures of the fundus, is cost-efficient, easy to implement, and permits easy recording and sharing of the images obtained, which is useful for case discussions and medical teaching. However, controlled clinical trials validating this method in the evaluation of optic nerve pathologies are needed.

Teaching Smartphone Funduscopy with 20 Diopter Lens in Undergraduate Medical Education

Purpose

To assess attitudes of pre-clinical undergraduate medical students toward learning smartphone funduscopy (SF) and its appropriateness as a teaching tool.

Patients and Methods

Second year medical students received instruction on direct ophthalmoscopy (DO) and SF; they were then paired with a peer and randomly assigned to perform DO or SF first. The SF technique involved freehand alignment of the axes of the smartphone camera with a condenser lens. Both techniques were done through a maximally dilated pupil. A questionnaire was completed to acquire data on baseline experience, performance of both examination techniques, attitudes, and appropriateness. Statistical significance testing and Bland-Altman analysis were used to determine differences between DO and SF, and a multivariable mixed regression model was fitted to identify any predictors for positive attitudes toward DO or SF.

Results

One hundred thirty-seven (137) individuals completed the study. A similar proportion of students could identify the optic nerve, macula, and vessels using DO and SF. However, self-reported quality scores were higher for DO for the optic nerve (p = 0.006) and macula (p = 0.08). The mean (standard deviation) attempts to identify these major structures were 2.7 (SD 2.3) for DO and 4.5 (SD 2.9) for SF (p < 0.001). Attitudes of students were consistently more positive toward DO across the five questions assessed. A small subset of students had equally positive attitudes toward DO and SF. Improved quality scores were predictive of positive attitudes for both DO and SF. Ultimately, 24% of students preferred SF over DO.

Conclusion

Among inexperienced examiners of the fundus through a dilated pupil, SF is a non-inferior technique to DO in identifying structures. Despite overall favorable attitudes towards the more familiar DO, those students who quickly learned the SF technique had similar satisfaction scores. Teaching SF should be considered in undergraduate medical education.