ABSTRACT
Purpose: To evaluate the Canon CP?TX1 camera as a screening tool for ARFs in a pediatric population and estimate the prevalence of ARFs. Methods: In a pediatric outpatient space, largely in the immunization clinic, after obtaining parental consent, we encouraged children to be photographed from a distance of 5 feet in a dim room by using a CP?TX1 camera with the red?eye reduction feature off. Based on the captured red reflex, children were labeled as normal (symmetrical red reflexes in the two eyes, with no visible crescents); all others were considered as abnormal or positive for ARFs. All photographed children were assessed by an optometrist/refractionist for VA by age?appropriate methods. Data were entered into a 2 � 2 contingency table on statpages.org, and diagnostic indices were calculated with 95%CI. Results: With a sample of 262 children, we obtained a sensitivity of 0.82, a specificity of 0.98, a positive predictive value of 0.92, a negative predictive value of 0.94, a positive likelihood ratio of 41.06, a negative likelihood ratio of 0.17, and a prevalence of 0.24 for ARFs. Conclusion: CP?TX1 performed well as a screening tool to identify ARFs in children. Placing such a camera in an immunization clinic offers a chance to identify children with ARFs at a time when amblyopia is eminently reversible.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Minimally invasive surgeries are gaining popularity. We compared two different approaches to rectus muscles: namely the standard para limbal (SPL) and the single para?muscular (SPM). Methods: Thirty?six patients planned for monocular horizontal strabismus surgery were block randomized to SPL and SPM approach. SPM approach involved a single para?muscular 10?mm conjunctival incision levelled at the inferior border of rectus muscle. We compared the post?operative grades of redness, congestion, chemosis, foreign body sensation, and drop intolerance at day 1, 2 weeks, and 6–8 weeks; scar visibility and success rates at 6–8 weeks and operation duration in minutes. We compared the results using Mann–Whitney U?test for inflammatory grades, Fisher’s exact test for proportions, and t?test for parametric measures. Significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: On postoperative follow-up at any time point, no significant difference was found on comparing inflammatory grades, scar visibility, and success rates. In terms of duration, SPL approach was on an average 21.5 minutes quicker than SPM (P = <0.001). Conclusion: The SPM is comparable to the SPL approach in terms of postoperative comfort and appearance, but takes significantly longer to accomplish.