ABSTRACT
Purpose: To describe estimation dynamic distance direct ophthalmoscopy (eDDDO) and compare it with the monocular estimation method of dynamic retinoscopy (eDR) for the assessment of accommodation in children. Methods: In this prospective observational cohort study, an ophthalmologist performed eDDDO followed by eDR in children with normal eyes, and then under the partial effects of cyclopentolate and tropicamide to assess performance of eDDDO with eDR under the condition of pharmacologically induced accommodation failure. Only one eye of each child was recruited in the study. To study the inter-observer variation, two masked pediatric ophthalmology fellows performed eDDDO in the similar manner. Results: For the comparison of eDDDO with eDR, 60 eyes of 60 patients were recruited. The mean age of the patients was 10.4 years. The mean accommodation on eDDDO was 3.0D, 5.1D, 9.8D, and 11.3D at 40 cm, 25 cm, 10 cm, and 8 cm, respectively and 3.0D, 5.0D, 9.5D, and 11.0D on eDR. The eDDDO overestimated accommodation by a mean 0.17D (95% CL 0-0.48D, P = 0.5). The correlation of eDDDO with eDR was excellent (Pearson r 0.98, T value 76.0). The inter-observer difference with eDDDO was not significant (mean 1D, 95% CL 0-2.6D, P = 0.9) and the correlation between two observers was excellent (Pearson r 0.9, T value 12.7). The eDDDO and eDR were also performed on 12 eyes of 6 children with a mean age of 8.5 years (range 8-12 years) under the partial effect of cyclopentolate and tropicamide, where eDDDO overestimated the accommodation by a mean 0.3D (95% CL 0- 1.2D, P = 0.7) and the correlation was excellent (Pearson r 1.0, T value 45). Conclusion: eDDDO is a simple, reliable, quantitative, and objective technique of accommodation assessment for children. Further studies with larger sample are required to assess its performance in disorders of accommodation affecting younger children and in children with ocular comorbidities.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: To report clinical manifestations of ocular allergy to atropine eye drops used for retardation of progressive myopia in children. Methods: Myopic children, who developed bothersome itching that subsided promptly after cessation of atropine eye drops, were included. History of systemic or ocular allergy, preexisting ocular conditions, and clinical features of allergy were noted. Results: Six children, age 5–15 years, were included. Four developed allergy to 1% atropine sulfate eye drops and two to 0.01% concentration of atropine sulfate. The onset of allergy was within a month to as late as 4 years after using atropine eye drops. The severity of allergy was higher with 1% concentration. The most common symptoms of atropine allergy were itching and burning. The most common signs were lid swelling and hyperemia. The allergic manifestations promptly reversed with the stoppage of eye drops. Reintroduction was possible in three patients, either by reducing the concentration of atropine or using benzalkonium free formulation. Conclusion: Allergy to atropine eye drops in children may develop within a few weeks or after many years of usage. Prompt cessation followed by a reintroduction and continuation of therapy may be possible in few patients.