ABSTRACT
Context: Sunglasses should follow minimum requirements to sufficiently protect eyes. It is not known whether all items obtainable from the market are appropriately designed. Aims: To compare ultraviolet (UV)‑protective properties of commercially available sunglasses obtained from authorized and unauthorized Iranian sellers. Settings and Study Design: An analytic‑descriptive study performed in a metropolitan area (Tehran). Materials and Methods: Using a UV‑visible standard spectrophotometer, the percentage transmittance was scanned between 280 and 400 nm in 348 pairs of nonprescription sunglasses (price range: 20–80 US$) obtained anonymously and randomly from authorized (permitted by the Ministry of Health, 189 pairs) and unauthorized (159 pairs) sellers in the Iranian capital city, Tehran. The Australian/New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS) and the American National Standards Institute [ANSI] standards were followed. Statistical Analysis: Chi‑square test, independent samples t‑test or Mann–Whitney U‑test. Results UV‑protective properties of the sunglasses obtained from authorized sellers complied with AS/NZS and ANSI guidelines in 92.6% and 95.2% of items, respectively. The corresponding rates for sunglasses obtained from unauthorized sellers were 0% and 8.2%, respectively (P < 0.001 for both). The rate of defective polarizing capability of lenses was 27.4% in sunglasses obtained from authorized sellers versus 90.4% in sunglasses obtained from unauthorized sellers (P < 0.001). Neither brand nor price played significant contributions to UV protection/lens polarizing capability of sunglasses obtained from authorized sellers. Conclusions: Sunglasses provided by unauthorized sellers are alarmingly unreliable and could be potentially hazardous for the eye. Brand and price do not guarantee optimal protection against UV radiation or polarizing performance of the lens.
ABSTRACT
A 3-year-old girl presented with left exotropia. Funduscopy demonstrated a retinocytoma associated with five discrete retinoblastomas in the left eye and three discrete retinoblastomas in her right eye. The clinical manifestations and fundus imaging findings are described.