Tan Hung-Hsi, Lee Kuo-Chang, Chen Yi-Rong, Huang Yu-Chin, Ke Rih-Shen, Horng Gwo-Jiun, Chen Kuo-Tai
Emergency Department, Chi-Mei Medical Center, Tainan, Taiwan.
Department of Biotechnology, Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Tainan, Taiwan.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2025 Feb 28;104(9):e41682. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000041682.
The accurate assessment of pupillary light reflex (PLR) is essential for monitoring critically ill patients, particularly those with traumatic brain injury or stroke and those in postoperative care. Smartphone-based pupillometers represent a potentially cost-effective solution for addressing this need. We developed a smartphone pupillometer application (app) and evaluated its effectiveness against the penlight test and quantitative pupillometry. This study included 50 volunteers aged >20 years and excluded individuals with neurologic or ophthalmic conditions. The app captured pupillary images by displaying a red circle on the screen, and an algorithm processed these images to calculate the pupil constriction percentage (PCP). The results revealed that the smartphone app often required multiple attempts for successful image acquisition. The obtained PCPs were consistently smaller and less variable than those obtained using the penlight test and a commercial pupillometer (app vs penlight for the right eye: 27.0% [27.0%-8.0%] vs 33.0% [32.3%-39.3%]; app vs pupillometer for the right eye: 27.0% [27.0%-28.0%] vs 35.0% [31.8%-38.3%]; app vs penlight for the left eye: 29.0% [28.0%-29.0%] vs 33.0% [29.8%-34.3%]; app vs pupillometer for the left eye: 29.0% [28.0%-29.0%] vs 36.0% [30.8%-38.0%]; P <.001 for all). Notably, the penlight and the pupillometer exhibited comparable PCPs (right eye: penlight vs pupillometer: 33.0% [32.3%-39.3%] vs 35.0% [31.8%-38.3%], P = .469; left eye: penlight vs pupillometer: 33.0% [29.8%-34.3%] vs 36.0% [30.8%-38.0%], P = .148). The app requires further refinement to yield results comparable to those of established methods. Future iterations can include alternative measurement strategies and dynamic assessment. Penlight and quantitative pupillometry remain indispensable as established tools for PLR.
准确评估瞳孔对光反射(PLR)对于监测重症患者至关重要,尤其是那些患有创伤性脑损伤或中风的患者以及术后护理患者。基于智能手机的瞳孔测量仪是满足这一需求的一种潜在具有成本效益的解决方案。我们开发了一款智能手机瞳孔测量仪应用程序(应用),并评估了其相对于手电筒测试和定量瞳孔测量的有效性。本研究纳入了50名年龄大于20岁的志愿者,排除了患有神经或眼科疾病的个体。该应用通过在屏幕上显示一个红色圆圈来捕捉瞳孔图像,一种算法对这些图像进行处理以计算瞳孔收缩百分比(PCP)。结果显示,智能手机应用程序通常需要多次尝试才能成功采集图像。所获得的PCP始终比使用手电筒测试和商用瞳孔测量仪所获得的PCP更小且变异性更小(右眼应用程序与手电筒测试:27.0%[27.0%-8.0%]对33.0%[32.3%-39.3%];右眼应用程序与瞳孔测量仪:27.0%[27.0%-28.0%]对35.0%[31.8%-38.3%];左眼应用程序与手电筒测试:29.0%[28.0%-29.0%]对33.0%[29.8%-34.3%];左眼应用程序与瞳孔测量仪:29.0%[28.0%-29.0%]对36.0%[30.8%-38.0%];所有P均<.001)。值得注意的是,手电筒测试和瞳孔测量仪的PCP相当(右眼:手电筒测试与瞳孔测量仪:33.0%[32.3%-39.3%]对35.0%[31.8%-38.3%],P =.469;左眼:手电筒测试与瞳孔测量仪:33.0%[29.8%-34.3%]对36.0%[30.8%-38.0%],P =.148)。该应用需要进一步改进以产生与既定方法相当的结果。未来的迭代可以包括替代测量策略和动态评估。手电筒测试和定量瞳孔测量作为PLR的既定工具仍然不可或缺。