Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Aug 9;10(8):576.
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics10080576.

Evaluation of Nuclear Cataract with Smartphone-Attachable Slit-Lamp Device

Hiroyuki Yazu  1   2   3 , Eisuke Shimizu  2   3 , Sho Okuyama  1   2 , Takuya Katahira  1 , Naohiko Aketa  2 , Ryota Yokoiwa  3 , Yasunori Sato  4 , Yoko Ogawa  2 , Hiroshi Fujishima  1   2
Affiliations

Evaluation of Nuclear Cataract with Smartphone-Attachable Slit-Lamp Device

Hiroyuki Yazu et al. Diagnostics (Basel). .

Abstract

Background: Visual impairments and age-related eye diseases need to be detected and treated in a timely manner. However, this is often hampered by lack of appropriate medical equipment. We have invented a portable, recordable, and smartphone-attachable slit-lamp device, called the Smart Eye Camera (SEC). The aim of this study was to compare evaluating nuclear cataract (NUC) between the SEC and the conventional, non-portable slit-lamp microscope. Methods: A total of 128 eyes of 64 Japanese patients (mean age: 73.95 ± 9.28 years; range: 51‒92 years; female: 34) were enrolled. The NUC was classified into four grades (grade 0 to 3) based on three standard photographs of nuclear opacities according to the WHO classification by ophthalmologists. An ophthalmic healthcare assistant (non-ophthalmologist) filmed the eyes in video mode by the SEC and an ophthalmologist graded the NUC. Grade correlation and inter-rater reproducibility were determined. Results: NUC grading by the two approaches correlated significantly (both eyes: r = 0.871 [95%CI: 0.821 to 0.907; p < 0.001]). Inter-rater agreement was high (weighted κ = 0.807 [95%CI: 0.798 to 0.816; p < 0.001]). Conclusions: This study suggests that the SEC is as reliable as the conventional non-portable slit-lamp microscope for evaluating NUC.

Keywords: cataract; conventional slit-lamp microscope; portable; recordable; smart eye camera.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

H.Y., E.S., and N.A. are the founders of OUI, Inc. The other authors have no conflict of interest to declare associated with this manuscript. H.F. received honoraria from Kobayashi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Santen Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., White Medical Co., Ltd., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Allergan, and Alcon Laboratories, Inc., but these were not related to the consent of the current study. The other authors declare no competing interest associated with this manuscript. OUI, Inc. supported the study in terms of providing the device for authors’ use but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flowchart.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Appearance of (A) the SEC and (B) the conventional slit-lamp microscope.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Representative cases imaged with the Smart Eye Camera. Eyes with (A) the lens replaced by an intraocular lens (IOL), (B) NUC grade 1, (C) NUC grade 2, and (D) NUC grade 3 are shown. Each red arrow indicates IOL or NUC.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Friedenwald J.S. Clinical studies in slit-lamp ophthalmoscopy. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1929;1:575–582. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1929.00810010596005. - DOI
    1. Tate G.W., Safir A. The slit lamp: History, principles, and practice. In: Duane T.D., editor. Clinical Opthalmology. Volume 1 Harper & Row; New York, NY, USA: 1981.
    1. Bourne R.R.A., Flaxman S.R., Braithwaite T., Cicinelli M.V., Das A., Jonas J.B., Keeffe J., Kempen J.H., Leasher J., Limburg H., et al. Magnitude, temporal trends, and projections of the global prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob. Health. 2017;5:e888–e897. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30293-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Flaxman S.R., Bourne R.R.A., Resnikoff S., Ackland P., Braithwaite T., Cicinelli M.V., Das A., Jonas J.B., Keeffe J., Kempen J.H., et al. Global causes of blindness and distance vision impairment 1990–2020: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob. Health. 2017;5:e1221–e1234. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30393-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brown N.A., Bron A.J., Ayliffe W., Sparrow J., Hill A.R. The objective assessment of cataract. Eye. 1987;1:234–246. doi: 10.1038/eye.1987.43. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources