Sammenligning af to håndholdte pupillometre

Freja Eriksen, Anne Bjørn Beck, Nadia Samer Kristensen, Lene Nøhr-Jensen

Publikation: Konferencebidrag uden forlag/tidsskriftPosterForskningpeer review

2 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

ID: 15404
COMPARISON OF TWO HANDHELD PUPILLOMETERS
F. Eriksen 1, A.B. Beck 1, N.S. Kristensen 1, L. Noehr-Jensen 1
1Biomedical Laboratory Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, University College Lillebaelt
BACKGROUND-AIM
The pupillary light reflex (PLR) are controlled by, and thus mimic the condition of the autonomic nervous system and
have been proven as valid biomarkers of neurological injuries.
Handheld pupillometers are now commercial available and might be a future tool for biomedical laboratory scientists
working in emergency and intensive care units. We aimed this study to compare the performance of two handheld
pupillometers.
METHODS
The PLR was measured in healthy volunteers by the use of PLR™-3000 from NeurOptics, USA and NeuroLight®
from IDMed, France in a darkened room (0.4 lux). Each participant was measured six times alternating between the
pupillometers with a period of 2 minutes dark adaption between each.
We compared maximum pupil size and after light stimulus: minimum pupil size, latency and maximum constriction
velocity. We also compared precision (CV%), number of failed measurements and user friendliness.
RESULTS
PLR were measured in 18 men and 34 women, aged 19 to 56 years.
The average maximum pupil size were 6.8 mm and 7.2 mm with average CV% of 1.6 (range 0.0-7.8) and 2.0 (range
0.0-5.6) measured by PLR™-3000 and NeuroLight®, respectively. The average minimum pupil size were accordingly 4.1
mm and 4.0 mm with average CV% of 4.1 (range 1.2-19.3) and 4.1 (range 0.5-10.3), with average latencies of 0.22 sec.
and 0.238 sec with average CV% of 4,5 (range 0-20.0) and 5.4 (range 0-24.0). Maximum constriction velocities were 4.9
mm/s and 5.2 mm/s with average CV% of 5,1 (range 0,7-15,5) and 7,2 (0,9-19,8), respectively.
Average differences with 95% intervals of confidence showed statistically significant difference in all measurements.
NeuroLight® showed higher resolution of latency, probably due to a higher number of pictures per second compared
to PLR™-3000.
The proportion of failed measurements were 7% with PLR™-3000 and 17% with NeuroLight®, χ2-test: p=0.006. The
user friendliness was rated highest with PLR™-3000.
CONCLUSIONS
Both pupillometers performed well and seems suited for measuring PLR. The users favored PLR™-3000 over
NeuroLight®, to a minor extend, due to fewer failed measurements and higher user friendliness. However, further
investigations of the accuracy are needed to fully describe the differences in performance of the two pupillometers.
Bidragets oversatte titelSammenligning af to håndholdte pupillometre
OriginalsprogEngelsk
Publikationsdato22 sep. 2018
StatusUdgivet - 22 sep. 2018

Emneord

  • Kliniske undersøgelsesmetoder, laboratorieteknologi og radiografi
  • Teknik, ingeniørvidenskab og IT
  • Sygdom, sundhedsvidenskab og sygepleje

Citationsformater