4.6 Article

Use of digital camera imaging of eye fundus for telemedicine in children suspected of abusive head injury

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 93, Issue 4, Pages 424-428

Publisher

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2008.147561

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: Pilot study of the role of RetCam imaging for telemedicine in lieu of availability of ophthalmologist examination for cases of suspected abusive head injury. Design: Cross-sectional observational study. Participants: 21 children admitted in the paediatric units of the University Hospital of Strasbourg (France) with suspicion of abusive head trauma were included. Methods: Children were examined by standard ophthalmoscopy. Photographs were taken using the RetCam-120 Digital Retinal Camera. Eye fundus images were stored and remotely read by an ophthalmologist. Patients also had radiographic skeletal series to look for bone fractures, and CT scan and/or MRI of the head to look for intracranial haemorrhages. Main outcome measures: The absence or presence of retinal haemorrhages was assessed by both methods. Feasability, sensitivity and specificity of the digital camera procedure were determined. Results: 85.7% of the children presented cerebral bleeding, and 14 out of the 21 (66.7%) had retinal haemorrhages on ophthalmoscopy. The digital camera detected the retinal abnormalities in all cases. One false-positive case was also reported. The sensitivity of the digital camera detection method was 100% with a specificity of 85.7%. 14 patients were eventually diagnosed as suffering from abusive trauma. RetCam helped establishing the diagnosis of abuse in 92.8% of these cases. Conclusions: Digital photography compared with ophthalmoscopy has a good sensitivity and specificity in detecting retinal haemorrhages. Remote reading of RetCam-120 photographs could be a promising strategy in detecting children with abusive head trauma.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available