Panoptic versus conventional ophthalmoscope

Background: The 'ease of use' andaccuracy in measurement of the vertical optic cup/discratio (VCDR) was compared between the conventional direct ophthalmoscope(CO) and Panoptic direct ophthalmoscope (PO) in a group of 'naive' firstyear medical students to determine which would be more suitablefor non-ophthalmologists. Methods: In this quasi-randomized method comparison study,eight students received an introductory session on ophthalmoscopythen examined 18 eyes (9 left, 9 right) with each ophthalmoscopein a private practice. The subjects were the eight students themselvesplus two other subjects. Each subject (n = 10)had one eye dilated. Students determined a VCDR and a subjectivescore of 'ease of use' on a scale of 1 (difficult)to 10 (easy). A consultant ophthalmologist (GAG) determined thebenchmark VCDR for each eye with each ophthalmoscope. Results: Of 288 eye examinations, there were 111 measure-ments of VCDR using the CO (47 undilated, 64dilated), and 140 measurements using the PO (75 undilated, 65 dilated).Differences in the students' estimated VCDR and the benchmarkwere similar for the CO and PO (P = 0.67). 'Easeof use' was scored in 288 eyes and the median score washigher in the PO overall (CO: median 8, IQR 6-9; PO median9, IQR 8-10; P < 0.0001), andwithin each session (P < 0.0001 foreach session). Conclusions: Medical students found the PO mucheasier to use, with accuracy of rating the VCDR similar to the CO. Thiscomparison would support the wider use of the PO amongst medicalstudents, general practitioners and other primary care providers.