Comparison of the efficacy and invasiveness of manual and automated gonioscopy.

<h4>Purpose</h4>To compare the efficacy and invasiveness of manual gonioscopy and automated 360-degree gonioscopy.<h4>Method</h4>Manual and automated gonioscopy were performed on 70 patients with glaucoma. Manual gonioscopy was performed by a glaucoma specialist and an ophtha...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Yuki Takagi, Mitsunori Watanabe, Takashi Kojima, Yukihiro Sakai, Ryo Asano, Kazuo Ichikawa
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2023-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284098
_version_ 1797843028535148544
author Yuki Takagi
Mitsunori Watanabe
Takashi Kojima
Yukihiro Sakai
Ryo Asano
Kazuo Ichikawa
author_facet Yuki Takagi
Mitsunori Watanabe
Takashi Kojima
Yukihiro Sakai
Ryo Asano
Kazuo Ichikawa
author_sort Yuki Takagi
collection DOAJ
description <h4>Purpose</h4>To compare the efficacy and invasiveness of manual gonioscopy and automated 360-degree gonioscopy.<h4>Method</h4>Manual and automated gonioscopy were performed on 70 patients with glaucoma. Manual gonioscopy was performed by a glaucoma specialist and an ophthalmology resident, and automated gonioscopy (GS-1) was performed by orthoptists. We compared the examination time for acquiring gonioscopic images (GS-1: 16 directions; manual gonioscopy: 8 directions). Furthermore, we compared the pain and discomfort scores during the examination using the Individualized Numeric Rating Scale. Among the images acquired by automated gonioscopy, we also evaluated the percentages of acquired images that could be used to determine the angle opening condition.<h4>Results</h4>The examination time was not significantly different between manual (80.2±28.7) and automated gonioscopy (94.7±82.8) (p = 0.105). The pain score of automated gonioscopy (0.22±0.59) was significantly lower than that of manual gonioscopy (0.55±1.11) (p = 0.025). The discomfort score was not significantly different between manual (1.34±1.90) and automated gonioscopy (1.06±1.50) (p = 0.165). Automated gonioscopy successfully acquired clear gonioscopic images in 93.4% of the total images.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Automated gonioscopy is comparable in examination time and invasiveness to manual gonioscopy and may be useful for 360-degree iridocorneal angle evaluation.
first_indexed 2024-04-09T16:59:10Z
format Article
id doaj.art-28cde67d279b490aad452208e39f13a6
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1932-6203
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-09T16:59:10Z
publishDate 2023-01-01
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
record_format Article
series PLoS ONE
spelling doaj.art-28cde67d279b490aad452208e39f13a62023-04-21T05:33:59ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032023-01-01184e028409810.1371/journal.pone.0284098Comparison of the efficacy and invasiveness of manual and automated gonioscopy.Yuki TakagiMitsunori WatanabeTakashi KojimaYukihiro SakaiRyo AsanoKazuo Ichikawa<h4>Purpose</h4>To compare the efficacy and invasiveness of manual gonioscopy and automated 360-degree gonioscopy.<h4>Method</h4>Manual and automated gonioscopy were performed on 70 patients with glaucoma. Manual gonioscopy was performed by a glaucoma specialist and an ophthalmology resident, and automated gonioscopy (GS-1) was performed by orthoptists. We compared the examination time for acquiring gonioscopic images (GS-1: 16 directions; manual gonioscopy: 8 directions). Furthermore, we compared the pain and discomfort scores during the examination using the Individualized Numeric Rating Scale. Among the images acquired by automated gonioscopy, we also evaluated the percentages of acquired images that could be used to determine the angle opening condition.<h4>Results</h4>The examination time was not significantly different between manual (80.2±28.7) and automated gonioscopy (94.7±82.8) (p = 0.105). The pain score of automated gonioscopy (0.22±0.59) was significantly lower than that of manual gonioscopy (0.55±1.11) (p = 0.025). The discomfort score was not significantly different between manual (1.34±1.90) and automated gonioscopy (1.06±1.50) (p = 0.165). Automated gonioscopy successfully acquired clear gonioscopic images in 93.4% of the total images.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Automated gonioscopy is comparable in examination time and invasiveness to manual gonioscopy and may be useful for 360-degree iridocorneal angle evaluation.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284098
spellingShingle Yuki Takagi
Mitsunori Watanabe
Takashi Kojima
Yukihiro Sakai
Ryo Asano
Kazuo Ichikawa
Comparison of the efficacy and invasiveness of manual and automated gonioscopy.
PLoS ONE
title Comparison of the efficacy and invasiveness of manual and automated gonioscopy.
title_full Comparison of the efficacy and invasiveness of manual and automated gonioscopy.
title_fullStr Comparison of the efficacy and invasiveness of manual and automated gonioscopy.
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the efficacy and invasiveness of manual and automated gonioscopy.
title_short Comparison of the efficacy and invasiveness of manual and automated gonioscopy.
title_sort comparison of the efficacy and invasiveness of manual and automated gonioscopy
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284098
work_keys_str_mv AT yukitakagi comparisonoftheefficacyandinvasivenessofmanualandautomatedgonioscopy
AT mitsunoriwatanabe comparisonoftheefficacyandinvasivenessofmanualandautomatedgonioscopy
AT takashikojima comparisonoftheefficacyandinvasivenessofmanualandautomatedgonioscopy
AT yukihirosakai comparisonoftheefficacyandinvasivenessofmanualandautomatedgonioscopy
AT ryoasano comparisonoftheefficacyandinvasivenessofmanualandautomatedgonioscopy
AT kazuoichikawa comparisonoftheefficacyandinvasivenessofmanualandautomatedgonioscopy