Assessing patients who are treated with intravitreal injections by ultra-wide field imaging versus slit lamp biomicroscopy.
Virtual assessment using ultra-widefield imaging shows high agreement with face-to-face exams.
Assessing patients who are treated with intravitreal injections by ultra-wide field imaging versus slit lamp biomicroscopy.
To evaluate the agreement between a virtual clinic model based on ultra-widefield imaging (ultra-widefield imaging) and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (spectral-domain optical coherence tomography) and conventional face-to-face (F2F) slit-lamp fundus examination with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography for treatment decision-making in patients receiving intravitreal injections.
In this retrospective masked paired comparative study, consecutive patients receiving intravitreal injections underwent F2F evaluation by a retina specialist using slit-lamp biomicroscopy and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.
F2F examination was predefined as the reference standard.
Of these, 217 eyes (50.94%) had neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD), 151 (35.45%) diabetic macular edema (diabetic macular edema), and 56 (13.15%) retinal vein occlusion (RVO; 36 branch RVO, 14 central RVO, and 6 hemi-retinal RVO).
One eye (0.23%) had myopic choroidal neovascularization (choroidal neovascularization), and one (0.23%) had Sorsby macular dystrophy with choroidal neovascularization.
The mean virtual review time was more than twofold shorter than the F2F evaluation ( P < 0.001).
Virtual assessment using ultra-widefield imaging demonstrated high agreement with F2F slit-lamp examination for treatment decision-making in patients receiving intravitreal injections.
This approach may represent an efficient alternative for selected follow-up visits in which anterior segment evaluation is not required.