PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
To compare the relative number of retinal pixels and retinal area imaged using the Optos P200DTx (Optos PLC) and Zeiss Clarus 500 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG) ultra-widefield (UWF) fundus cameras.
Single-center retrospective cross-sectional analysis.
Seventy-eight eyes of 46 patients.
Eyes were imaged with Optos P200DTx, single-capture, and Zeiss Clarus 500, 2 capture montages when possible, UWF fundus cameras. Relative number of pixels encompassing all foveal-centered retinal quadrants were measured. Retinal area was measured with Zeiss Clarus 500 images that were registered to the Optos P200DTx images. Patients and technicians were asked for preferences between the machines. Imaging session times were recorded.
Relative number of retinal pixels and retina area captured by each fundus camera.
Optos P200DTx consistently captured more relative pixels compared with Zeiss Clarus 500: 510.4 versus 355.6 (P < 0.001) in total with a similarly statistically significant trend in all 4 quadrants (P < 0.001 for each). For area calculation, 70 of the 78 images achieved successful registration. Optos captured a larger total retinal area: 765.6 versus 566.5 mm2 (P < 0.001) with a similarly statistically significant trend in all 4 quadrants. In the subset of 52 of 70 registered and montaged Zeiss Clarus 500 images, similar results were found. For peripheral pathologic features, Optos P200DTx captured unique findings in 28 images, and Zeiss Clarus 500 captured unique findings 1 image (P < 0.001). Among the 48 imaging sessions in which technicians preferred Optos P200DTx for 28 sessions (58%) and Zeiss Clarus 500 for 20 (42%; P = 0.15). Among patients who responded with a preference, 24 preferred Optos P200DTx and 20 preferred Zeiss Clarus 500 (P = 0.52). Average imaging session time was 4.6 minutes (standard deviation, 3.0 minutes) for Optos P200DTx and 5.2 minutes (standard deviation, 3.0 minutes) for Zeiss Clarus 500 (P = 0.17).
In the current study, the Optos P200DTx captured statistically significantly more retinal area in all 4 quadrants compared with the Zeiss Clarus 500. No statistically significant difference was found in patient or technician preference or image acquisition time between devices.
Single-center retrospective cross-sectional analysis.
Seventy-eight eyes of 46 patients.
Eyes were imaged with Optos P200DTx, single-capture, and Zeiss Clarus 500, 2 capture montages when possible, UWF fundus cameras. Relative number of pixels encompassing all foveal-centered retinal quadrants were measured. Retinal area was measured with Zeiss Clarus 500 images that were registered to the Optos P200DTx images. Patients and technicians were asked for preferences between the machines. Imaging session times were recorded.
Relative number of retinal pixels and retina area captured by each fundus camera.
Optos P200DTx consistently captured more relative pixels compared with Zeiss Clarus 500: 510.4 versus 355.6 (P < 0.001) in total with a similarly statistically significant trend in all 4 quadrants (P < 0.001 for each). For area calculation, 70 of the 78 images achieved successful registration. Optos captured a larger total retinal area: 765.6 versus 566.5 mm2 (P < 0.001) with a similarly statistically significant trend in all 4 quadrants. In the subset of 52 of 70 registered and montaged Zeiss Clarus 500 images, similar results were found. For peripheral pathologic features, Optos P200DTx captured unique findings in 28 images, and Zeiss Clarus 500 captured unique findings 1 image (P < 0.001). Among the 48 imaging sessions in which technicians preferred Optos P200DTx for 28 sessions (58%) and Zeiss Clarus 500 for 20 (42%; P = 0.15). Among patients who responded with a preference, 24 preferred Optos P200DTx and 20 preferred Zeiss Clarus 500 (P = 0.52). Average imaging session time was 4.6 minutes (standard deviation, 3.0 minutes) for Optos P200DTx and 5.2 minutes (standard deviation, 3.0 minutes) for Zeiss Clarus 500 (P = 0.17).
In the current study, the Optos P200DTx captured statistically significantly more retinal area in all 4 quadrants compared with the Zeiss Clarus 500. No statistically significant difference was found in patient or technician preference or image acquisition time between devices.
摘要：
比较使用OptosP200DTx（OptosPLC）和ZeissClarus500（CarlZeissMeditecAG）超宽视场（UWF）眼底相机成像的视网膜像素和视网膜面积的相对数量。
单中心回顾性横断面分析。
46例患者的78只眼。
用OptosP200DTx对眼睛进行成像，单捕获，蔡司·克拉鲁斯500，尽可能捕获蒙太奇，UWF眼底照相机。测量包含所有中心凹视网膜象限的相对像素数。用ZeissClarus500图像测量视网膜面积，这些图像与OptosP200DTx图像配准。要求患者和技术人员对机器之间的偏好。记录成像会话时间。
由每个眼底照相机捕获的视网膜像素和视网膜面积的相对数量。
与ZeissClarus500：510.4和355.6（P<0.001）相比，OptosP200DTx始终捕获更多的相对像素，在所有4个象限中具有相似的统计学显着趋势（每个象限P<0.001）。对于面积计算，78张图像中的70张实现了成功的配准。Optos捕获更大的总视网膜面积:765.6对566.5mm2(P<0.001),在所有4个象限中具有类似的统计学显著趋势。在70张注册和蒙太奇的蔡司·克拉鲁斯500张图像中的52张子集中，发现了类似的结果。对于外周病理特征，OptosP200DTx在28张图像中捕获了独特的发现，ZeissClarus500捕获了独特的发现1图像（P<0.001）。在48个成像会话中，技术人员首选OptosP200DTx进行28个（58％），蔡司·克拉鲁斯500进行20个（42％；P=0.15）。在有偏好反应的患者中，24个首选OptosP200DTx，20个首选蔡司·克拉鲁斯500（P=0.52）。平均成像时间为4.6分钟(标准偏差，3.0分钟）对于OptosP200DTx和5.2分钟（标准偏差，3.0分钟），适用于蔡司·克拉鲁斯500（P=0.17）。
在目前的研究中,与ZeissClarus500相比，OptosP200DTx在所有4个象限中捕获了更多的统计学视网膜区域。在设备之间的患者或技术人员偏好或图像采集时间方面没有发现统计学上的显着差异。
单中心回顾性横断面分析。
46例患者的78只眼。
用OptosP200DTx对眼睛进行成像，单捕获，蔡司·克拉鲁斯500，尽可能捕获蒙太奇，UWF眼底照相机。测量包含所有中心凹视网膜象限的相对像素数。用ZeissClarus500图像测量视网膜面积，这些图像与OptosP200DTx图像配准。要求患者和技术人员对机器之间的偏好。记录成像会话时间。
由每个眼底照相机捕获的视网膜像素和视网膜面积的相对数量。
与ZeissClarus500：510.4和355.6（P<0.001）相比，OptosP200DTx始终捕获更多的相对像素，在所有4个象限中具有相似的统计学显着趋势（每个象限P<0.001）。对于面积计算，78张图像中的70张实现了成功的配准。Optos捕获更大的总视网膜面积:765.6对566.5mm2(P<0.001),在所有4个象限中具有类似的统计学显著趋势。在70张注册和蒙太奇的蔡司·克拉鲁斯500张图像中的52张子集中，发现了类似的结果。对于外周病理特征，OptosP200DTx在28张图像中捕获了独特的发现，ZeissClarus500捕获了独特的发现1图像（P<0.001）。在48个成像会话中，技术人员首选OptosP200DTx进行28个（58％），蔡司·克拉鲁斯500进行20个（42％；P=0.15）。在有偏好反应的患者中，24个首选OptosP200DTx，20个首选蔡司·克拉鲁斯500（P=0.52）。平均成像时间为4.6分钟(标准偏差，3.0分钟）对于OptosP200DTx和5.2分钟（标准偏差，3.0分钟），适用于蔡司·克拉鲁斯500（P=0.17）。
在目前的研究中,与ZeissClarus500相比，OptosP200DTx在所有4个象限中捕获了更多的统计学视网膜区域。在设备之间的患者或技术人员偏好或图像采集时间方面没有发现统计学上的显着差异。
