Glaucoma is the leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide. Access to glaucoma specialists is challenging and likely to become more difficult as the population ages.
Introduction:
Using telemedicine for glaucoma (teleglaucoma) has the potential to increase access to glaucoma care by improving efficiency and decreasing the need for long-distance travel for patients.
Results:
Teleglaucoma programs can be used for screening, diagnostic consultation, and long-term treatment monitoring. Key components of teleglaucoma programs include patient history, equipment, intraocular pressure measurement, pachymetry, anterior chamber imaging/gonioscopy, fundus photography, retinal nerve fiber layer imaging, medical record and imaging software, and skilled personnel.
Discussion:
Teleglaucoma has tremendous potential to improve patient access to high-quality cost-effective glaucoma care.
Conclusions:
We have reviewed some special considerations needed to address the complexity of providing guideline-concordant glaucoma care.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ThamYC, LiX, WongTY, QuigleyHA, AungT, ChengCY. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology, 2014; 121:2081–2090.
2.
National Eye Institute. 2010 U.S. age-specific prevalence rates for glaucoma by age and race/ethnicity. 2010. Available at https://www.nei.nih.gov/learn-about-eye-health/resources-for-health-educators/eye-health-data-and-statistics/glaucoma-data-and-statistics (last accessed December29, 2019).
3.
ReinDB, ZhangP, WirthKE, et al.The economic burden of major adult visual disorders in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol, 2006; 124:1754–1760.
4.
Canadian Ophthalmological Society Glaucoma Clinical Practice Guideline ExpertCommittee, Canadian OphthalmologicalSociety. Canadian Ophthalmological Society evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of glaucoma in the adult eye. Can J Ophthalmol, 2009; 44(Suppl. 1):S7–S93.
5.
PrumBEJr., RosenbergLF, GeddeSJ, et al.Primary open-angle glaucoma preferred practice pattern((R)) guidelines. Ophthalmology, 2016; 123:P41–P111.
6.
ResnikoffS, FelchW, GauthierTM, SpiveyB. The number of ophthalmologists in practice and training worldwide: A growing gap despite more than 200,000 practitioners. Br J Ophthalmol, 2012; 96(6):783–787.
7.
KassamF, YogesanK, SogbesanE, PasqualeLR, DamjiKF. Teleglaucoma: Improving access and efficiency for glaucoma care. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol, 2013; 20:142–149.
8.
BlázquezF, SebastiánMA, AntónA. [Detection of glaucoma using SisGlaTel: Acceptability and satisfaction among participants, and problems detected]. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol, 2008; 83:533–538.
9.
ClarkeJ, PuertasR, KotechaA, FosterPJ, BartonK. Virtual clinics in glaucoma care: Face-to-face versus remote decision-making. Br J Ophthalmol, 2017; 101:892–895.
10.
de BontA, BalR. Telemedicine in interdisciplinary work practices: On an IT system that met the criteria for success set out by its sponsors, yet failed to become part of every-day clinical routines. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak, 2008; 8:47.
11.
HautalaN, HyytinenP, SaarelaV, et al.A mobile eye unit for screening of diabetic retinopathy and follow-up of glaucoma in remote locations in northern Finland. Acta Ophthalmol, 2009; 87:912–913.
12.
KassamF, AminS, SogbesanE, DamjiKF. The use of teleglaucoma at the University of Alberta. J Telemed Telecare, 2012; 18:367–373.
KennedyC, KirwanJ, CookC, RouxP, StultingA, MurdochI. Telemedicine techniques can be used to facilitate the conduct of multicentre trials. J Telemed Telecare, 2000; 6:343–347; discussion 347–349.
15.
KiageD, KheraniIN, GichuhiS, DamjiKF, NyenzeM. The Muranga Teleophthalmology Study: Comparison of virtual (teleglaucoma) with in-person clinical assessment to diagnose glaucoma. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol, 2013; 20:150–157.
OwsleyC, RhodesLA, McGwinGJr., et al. Eye care quality and accessibility improvement in the community (EQUALITY) for adults at risk for glaucoma: Study rationale and design. Int J Equity Health, 2015; 14:135.
18.
RhodesLA, HuisinghCE, McGwinGJr., et al. Eye care quality and accessibility improvement in the community (EQUALITY): Impact of an eye health education program on patient knowledge about glaucoma and attitudes about eye care. Patient Relat Outcome Meas, 2016; 7:37–48.
19.
StaffieriSE, RuddleJB, KearnsLS, et al.Telemedicine model to prevent blindness from familial glaucoma. Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2011; 39:760–765.
20.
TuulonenA, OhinmaaT, AlankoHI, HyytinenP, JuutinenA, ToppinenE. The application of teleophthalmology in examining patients with glaucoma: A pilot study. J Glaucoma, 1999; 8:367–373.
21.
VermaS, AroraS, KassamF, EdwardsMC, DamjiKF. Northern Alberta remote teleglaucoma program: Clinical outcomes and patient disposition. Can J Ophthalmol, 2014; 49:135–140.
22.
WrightHR, DiamondJP. Service innovation in glaucoma management: Using a Web-based electronic patient record to facilitate virtual specialist supervision of a shared care glaucoma programme. Br J Ophthalmol, 2015; 99:313–317.
23.
KotechaA, BaldwinA, BrookesJ, FosterPJ. Experiences with developing and implementing a virtual clinic for glaucoma care in an NHS setting. Clin Ophthalmol, 2015; 9:1915–1923.
24.
ThomasS, HodgeW, Malvankar-MehtaM. The cost-effectiveness analysis of teleglaucoma screening device. PLoS One, 2015; 10:e0137913.
25.
CourtJH, AustinMW. Virtual glaucoma clinics: Patient acceptance and quality of patient education compared to standard clinics. Clin Ophthalmol, 2015; 9:745–749.
26.
ParkDW, MansbergerSL. Eye disease in patients with diabetes screened with telemedicine. Telemed J E Health, 2017; 23:113–118.
27.
CavalleranoAA, CavalleranoJD, KatalinicP, et al.A telemedicine program for diabetic retinopathy in a Veterans Affairs Medical Center—the Joslin Vision Network Eye Health Care Model. Am J Ophthalmol, 2005; 139:597–604.
28.
ThomasSM, JeyaramanMM, HodgeWG, HutnikC, CostellaJ, Malvankar-MehtaMS. The effectiveness of teleglaucoma versus in-patient examination for glaucoma screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 2014; 9:e113779.
29.
MoyerVA, ForceUSPST. Screening for glaucoma: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med, 2013; 159:484–489.
30.
BokmanCL, PasqualeLR, ParrishRK, 2nd, LeeRK. Glaucoma screening in the Haitian Afro-Caribbean population of South Florida. PLoS One, 2014; 9:e115942.
31.
WaisbourdM, PruzanNL, JohnsonD, et al.The Philadelphia Glaucoma Detection and Treatment Project: Detection rates and initial management. Ophthalmology, 2016; 123:1667–1674.
32.
KassamF, SogbesanE, BoucherS, et al.Collaborative care and teleglaucoma: A novel approach to delivering glaucoma services in Northern Alberta, Canada. Clin Exp Optom, 2013; 96:577–580.
33.
KashiwagiK, TanabeN, GoK, et al.Comparison of a remote operating slit-lamp microscope system with a conventional slit-lamp microscope system for examination of trabeculectomy eyes. J Glaucoma, 2013; 22:278–283.
34.
LiuS, LamS, WeinrebRN, et al.Comparison of standard automated perimetry, frequency-doubling technology perimetry, and short-wavelength automated perimetry for detection of glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2011; 52:7325–7331.
35.
MonsalveB, FerrerasA, CalvoP, et al.Diagnostic ability of Humphrey perimetry, Octopus perimetry, and optical coherence tomography for glaucomatous optic neuropathy. Eye (Lond), 2017; 31:443–451.
36.
LowryEA, HouJ, HenneinL, et al.Comparison of peristat online perimetry with the humphrey perimetry in a clinic-based setting. Transl Vis Sci Technol, 2016; 5:4.
37.
VingrysAJ, HealeyJK, LiewS, et al.Validation of a tablet as a tangent perimeter. Transl Vis Sci Technol, 2016; 5:3.
38.
TanS, YuM, BaigN, HansapinyoL, ThamCC. Agreement of patient-measured intraocular pressure using rebound tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in glaucoma patients. Sci Rep, 2017; 7:42067.
39.
ChenE, QueratL, AkerstedtC. Self-tonometry as a complement in the investigation of glaucoma patients. Acta Ophthalmol, 2016; 94:788–792.
40.
TojoN, AbeS, IshidaM, YagouT, HayashiA. The fluctuation of intraocular pressure measured by a contact lens sensor in normal-tension glaucoma patients and nonglaucoma subjects. J Glaucoma, 2017; 26:195–200.
41.
TojoN, HayashiA, OtsukaM, MiyakoshiA. Fluctuations of the intraocular pressure in pseudoexfoliation syndrome and normal eyes measured by a contact lens sensor. J Glaucoma, 2016; 25:e463–e468.
42.
BrandtJD, BeiserJA, GordonMO, KassMA, Ocular Hypertension Treatment StudyGroup. Central corneal thickness and measured IOP response to topical ocular hypotensive medication in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Am J Ophthalmol, 2004; 138:717–722.
43.
BarkanaY, GerberY, ElbazU, et al.Central corneal thickness measurement with the Pentacam Scheimpflug system, optical low-coherence reflectometry pachymeter, and ultrasound pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2005; 31:1729–1735.
44.
TunTA, BaskaranM, TanSS, PereraSA, AungT, HusainR. Evaluation of the anterior segment angle-to-angle scan of cirrus high-definition optical coherence tomography and comparison with gonioscopy and with the visante OCT. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2017; 58:59–64.
45.
HanJW, ChoSY, KangKD. Correlation between optic nerve parameters obtained using 3D nonmydriatic retinal camera and optical coherence tomography: Interobserver agreement on the disc damage likelihood scale. J Ophthalmol, 2014; 2014:931738.
46.
SpaethGL, HendererJ, LiuC, et al.The disc damage likelihood scale: Reproducibility of a new method of estimating the amount of optic nerve damage caused by glaucoma. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc, 2002; 100:181–185; discussion 185–186.
47.
SchremsWA, Schrems-HoeslLM, MardinCY, LaemmerR, KruseFE, HornFK. Can glaucomatous visual field progression be predicted by structural and functional measures?. J Glaucoma, 2017; 26:373–382.
48.
LiG, FansiAK, BoivinJF, JosephL, HarasymowyczP. Screening for glaucoma in high-risk populations using optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology, 2010; 117:453–461.
49.
SpringelkampH, LeeK, WolfsRC, et al.Population-based evaluation of retinal nerve fiber layer, retinal ganglion cell layer, and inner plexiform layer as a diagnostic tool for glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2014; 55:8428–8438.
50.
ChongGT, LeeRK. Glaucoma versus red disease: Imaging and glaucoma diagnosis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol, 2012; 23:79–88.
51.
HaleemMS, HanL, HemertJ, et al.Regional image features model for automatic classification between normal and glaucoma in fundus and scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (SLO) images. J Med Syst, 2016; 40:132.
52.
O'DayR, SmithC, MuirJ, TurnerA. Optometric use of a teleophthalmology service in rural Western Australia: Comparison of two prospective audits. Clin Exp Optom, 2016; 99:163–167.
