No abstract

OBJECTIVETo compare efficiency of nonmydriatic ultrawide field retinal imaging (UWFI) and nonmydriatic fundus photography (NMFP) in a diabetic retinopathy (DR) ocular telehealth program. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSPatients in this retrospective, comparative cohort study underwent NMFP and UWFI between 1 November 2011 and 1 November 2012. Images were evaluated for DR and diabetic macular edema (DME) by certified graders using a standard protocol at a centralized reading center. Identification of DR, image evaluation time, and rate of ungradable eyes were compared. RESULTSNMFP and UWFI were performed in 1,633 and 2,170 consecutive patients, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between groups regarding age, diabetes duration, sex, ethnicity, or insulin use. The ungradable rate per patient for DR (2.9 vs. 9.9%, P < 0.0001) and DME (3.8 vs. 8.8%, P < 0.0001) was lower with UWFI than with NMFP. With UWFI, the median image evaluation time per patient was reduced from 12.8 to 9.2 min (P < 0.0001). The identification of patients with DR (38.4 vs. 33.8%) and vision-threatening DR (14.5 vs. 11.9%) was increased with UWFI versus NMFP. In a consecutive subgroup of 502 eyes of 301 patients with DR, the distribution of peripheral retinal lesions outside Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study fields suggested a more severe DR level in 9.0% (45 eyes). CONCLUSIONSIn a standardized DR ocular telehealth program, nonmydriatic UWFI reduced the ungradable rate by 71% (to <3%) and reduced image evaluation time by 28%. DR was identified 17% more frequently after UWFI, and DR peripheral lesions suggested a more severe DR level in 9%. These data suggest that UWFI may improve efficiency of ocular telehealth programs evaluating DR and DME.

Endoscopic pars plana vitrectomy, panretinal photocoagulation, and ECP seem to control intraocular pressure to a greater extent than standard glaucoma treatments in patients with neovascular glaucoma. In this aged-matched comparative case series, there was no significant difference between the two treatments' effects on visual acuity.