Published date: Jul 29 2021

Journal Title: Journal of Ophthalmic and Vision Research

Issue title: July–September 2021, Volume 16, Issue 3

Pages: 357–366

DOI: 10.18502/jovr.v16i3.9432

Gagan KalraDepartment of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh, India

Parul Ichhpujaniparul77@rediffmail.comDepartment of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh, India

Sahil ThakurDepartment of Ocular Epidemiology, Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore

Urvashi SharmaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh, India

Purpose: Ophthalmology has seen numerous novel uses for smartphones over the years including fundus photography, telemedicine, and operative videography. However, anterior segment photography for assessing and documenting trabeculectomy bleb morphology using a smartphone has not been explored in detail. With the current study, we aim to characterize ideal illumination for the anterior segment smartphone photography in trabeculectomy patients.

Methods: Thirty status post-trabeculectomy patients were enrolled in this study. Native camera application and FiLMiC pro camera application were used on iPhone X to compare bleb images using yellow and white pen-torches as illumination source. Measured bleb area was compared using ImageJ software from the two apps in different illumination settings by charting boxplots and using one-way ANOVA test using R software to establish consistency. Bland-Altman interoperability for repeatability of blebarea measurements was analyzed by plotting Bland-Altman plots. Signal-to-noise ratio was calculated using ImageJ for native camera images using slit-lamp camera images as reference. Subjective rating of these images was then performed by two experienced ophthalmologists and kappa coefficient was calculated for inter-operator repeatability. Statistical analysis was performed.

Results: The measured bleb area from images taken from both apps showed no significant difference, thereby establishing consistency, and Bland-Altman analysis indicated good repeatability and reproducibility. It was noted that SNR was lower for images shot in close illumination as compared to the ones shot in intermediate and distant illumination. Cohen’s kappa coefficient was 0.7 for images with distant illumination using white light and 0.65 for images clicked with illumination at an intermediate distance using yellow light, suggesting substantial agreement between the observers.

Conclusion: Smartphone photography is a reliable tool for morphological assessment trabeculectomy blebs. Optimal illumination helps achieve results free from digital noise and better delineation of specific morphological features. Intermediate illumination and distant illumination provides much better results in terms of high SNR while avoiding overexposure and clipping of highlight information in the images.

1. Panwar N, Huang P, Lee J, Keane PA, Chuan TS, Richhariya A, et al. Fundus photography in the 21st century—a review of recent technological advances and their implications for worldwide healthcare. Telemed J E Health 2016;22:198– 208.

2. Stanzel B, Meyer C. Smartphones in ophthalmology: relief or toys for physicians? Ophthalmologe 2012;109:8–20.

3. Chhablani J, Kaja S, Shah VA. Smartphones in ophthalmology. Indian J Ophthalmol 2012;60:127.

4. Lord RK, Shah VA, San Filippo AN, Krishna R. Novel uses of smartphones in ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2010;117:1274.e3.

5. Kumar S, Wang E-H, Pokabla MJ, Noecker RJ. Teleophthalmology assessment of diabetic retinopathy fundus images: smartphone versus standard office computer workstation. Telemed J E Health 2012;18:158– 162.

6. Haddock LJ, Kim DY, Mukai S. Simple, inexpensive technique for high-quality smartphone fundus photography in human and animal eyes. J Ophthalmol 2013;2013:518479.

7. Mohammadpour M, Heidari Z, Mirghorbani M, Hashemi H. Smartphones, tele-ophthalmology, and VISION 2020. Int J Ophthalmol 2017;10:1909–1918.

8. Kim DY, Delori F, Mukai S. Smartphone photography safety. Ophthalmology 2012;119:2200–2201.

9. Myung D, Jais A, He L, Blumenkranz MS, Chang RT. 3D printed smartphone indirect lens adapter for rapid, high quality retinal imaging. J Mob Technol Med 2014;3:9–15.

10. Hasinoff SW, Durand F, Freeman WT. Noise-optimal capture for high dynamic range photography. In: 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition; 2010; p. 553–560.

11. Petschnigg G, Szeliski R, Agrawala M, Cohen M, Hoppe H, Toyama K. Digital photography with flash and no-flash image pairs. ACM Trans Graph 2004;23:664–672.

12. Collon S, Chang D, Tabin G, Hong K, Myung D, Thapa S. Utility and feasibility of teleophthalmology using a smartphone-based ophthalmic camera in screening camps in Nepal. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol 2020;9:54.

13. Ludwig CA, Newsom MR, Jais A, Myung DJ, Murthy SI, Chang RT. Training time and quality of smartphone-based anterior segment screening in rural India. Clin Ophthalmol 2017;11:1301.

14. Prasanna P, Jain S, Bhagat N, Madabhushi A. Decision support system for detection of diabetic retinopathy using smartphones. In: 2013 7th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare and Workshops; 2013; p. 176–179.

15. Goats GC. Appropriate use of the inverse square law. Physiotherapy 1988;74:8.

16. Kalra G, Ichhpujani P, Thakur S, Singh RB, Sharma U, Kumar S. A pilot study for smartphone photography to assess bleb morphology and vasculature posttrabeculectomy. Int Ophthalmol 2021;41:483–490.

17. Cantor LB, Mantravadi A, WuDunn D, Swamynathan K, Cortes A. Morphologic classification of filtering blebs after glaucoma filtration surgery: the Indiana Bleb Appearance Grading Scale. J Glaucoma 2003;12:266–271.

18. Furrer S, Menke MN, Funk J, Töteberg-Harms M. Evaluation of filtering blebs using the ‘Wuerzburg bleb classification score’compared to clinical findings. BMC Ophthalmol 2012;12:24.

19. Hasinoff SW, Sharlet D, Geiss R, Adams A, Barron JT, Kainz F, et al. Burst photography for high dynamic range and low-light imaging on mobile cameras. ACM Trans Graph 2016;35:192.

20. Behrendt FF, Schmidt B, Plumhans C, Keil S, Woodruff SG, Ackermann D, et al. Image fusion in dual energy computed tomography: effect on contrast enhancement, signal-tonoise ratio and image quality in computed tomography angiography. Invest Radiol 2009;44:1–6.

21. Sijbers J, Scheunders P, Bonnet N, Van Dyck D, Raman E. Quantification and improvement of the signal-tonoise ratio in a magnetic resonance image acquisition procedure. Magn Reson Imaging 1996;14:1157–1163.

22. Wang ZJ, Yamamura J, Keller S. Signal-to-noise ratio assessment of muscle diffusion tensor imaging using single image set and validation by the difference image method. Br J Radiol 2019;92:20190133.