Dataset Information

Quality and learning curve of handheld versus stand-alone non-mydriatic cameras.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Nowadays, complex digital imaging systems allow detailed retinal imaging without dilating patients' pupils. These so-called non-mydriatic cameras have advantages in common circumstances (eg, for screening or emergency purposes) but present limitations in terms of image quality and field of view. We compare the usefulness of two non-mydriatic camera systems (ie, a handheld versus a stand-alone device) for fundus imaging. The primary outcome was image quality. The secondary outcomes were learning effects and quality grade-influencing factors. METHODS:The imaging procedures followed standard protocol and were all performed by the same investigator. Camera 1 (DRS®) was a stand-alone system, while Camera 2 (Smartscope® PRO) was a mobile system. In order to evaluate possible learning effects, we selected an examiner with no prior training in the use of these systems. The images were graded separately by two experienced and "blinded" ophthalmologists following a defined protocol. RESULTS:In total, 211 people were enrolled. Quality grade comparisons showed significantly better grades for Camera 1. Both systems achieved better quality grades for macular images than for disc-centered images. No remarkable learning effects could be demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS:Both camera systems are useful for fundus imaging. The greater mobility of Camera 2 was associated with lower image quality. For screening scenarios or telemedicine, it must be determined whether image quality or mobility is more important.

SUBMITTER: Gosheva M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5587188 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality and learning curve of handheld versus stand-alone non-mydriatic cameras.

Gosheva Mariya M Klameth Christian C Norrenberg Lars L Clin Lucien L Dietter Johannes J Haq Wadood W Ivanov Iliya V IV Ziemssen Focke F Leitritz Martin A MA

Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) 20170831

<h4>Purpose</h4>Nowadays, complex digital imaging systems allow detailed retinal imaging without dilating patients' pupils. These so-called non-mydriatic cameras have advantages in common circumstances (eg, for screening or emergency purposes) but present limitations in terms of image quality and field of view. We compare the usefulness of two non-mydriatic camera systems (ie, a handheld versus a stand-alone device) for fundus imaging. The primary outcome was image quality. The secondary outcome ...[more]

PMID: 28919703

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCompared to conventional laparoscopy, robot assisted surgery is expected to have most potential in difficult areas and demanding technical skills like minimally invasive suturing. This study was performed to identify the differences in the learning curves of laparoscopic versus robot assisted suturing.MethodNovice participants performed three suturing tasks on the EoSim laparoscopic augmented reality simulator or the RobotiX robot assisted virtual reality simulator. Each participant performed an intracorporeal suturing task, a tilted plane needle transfer task and an anastomosis needle transfer task. To complete the learning curve, all tasks were repeated up to twenty repetitions or until a time plateau was reached. Clinically relevant and comparable parameters regarding time, movements and safety were recorded. Intracorporeal suturing time and cumulative sum analysis was used to compare the learning curves and phases.ResultsSeventeen participants completed the learning curve laparoscopically and 30 robot assisted. Median first knot suturing time was 611 s (s) for laparoscopic versus 251 s for robot assisted (p < 0.001), and this was 324 s versus 165 (sixth knot, p < 0.001) and 257 s and 149 s (eleventh knot, p < 0.001) respectively on base of the found learning phases. The percentage of 'adequate surgical knots' was higher in the laparoscopic than in the robot assisted group. First knot: 71% versus 60%, sixth knot: 100% versus 83%, and eleventh knot: 100% versus 73%. When assessing the 'instrument out of view' parameter, the robot assisted group scored a median of 0% after repetition four. In the laparoscopic group, the instrument out of view increased from 3.1 to 3.9% (left) and from 3.0 to 4.1% (right) between the first and eleventh knot (p > 0.05).ConclusionThe learning curve of minimally invasive suturing shows a shorter task time curve using robotic assistance compared to the laparoscopic curve. However, laparoscopic outcomes show good end results with rapid outcome improvement.

Dataset Information

Quality and learning curve of handheld versus stand-alone non-mydriatic cameras.

Publications

Quality and learning curve of handheld versus stand-alone non-mydriatic cameras.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets