Profile of asymmetrical retinopathy of prematurity in twins.

Background: In twin births, both babies have the same gestational age and pre-natal conditions. However, twins may develop a varied retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) course depending on birth weight and other systemic factors. Objective: To study the profile of asymmetric ROP in twins Design: Retrospective study Setting: Tertiary ROP referral eye hospital. Materials and Methods: The profile of 56 pairs of twins with ROP were studied and analyzed for differences in zone or need for treatment, while studying possible causes for the varied outcome. Results: In 45 pairs of twins (80%) the disease progressed identically in both eyes, while in 11 pairs (20%) the ROP showed differences in zone or need for treatment. Four of these pairs were discordant. In 3 of these 4 pairs, the heavier birth weight twin had a more severe ROP course. Conclusions: Twins can present with asymmetric ROP course, and it is therefore essential to examine both twins as per screening protocols.

Preferred clinical practice in convergence insufficiency in India: a survey.

PURPOSE: Convergence insufficiency (CI) is a common binocular vision disorder. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding the treatment most appropriate for CI. The aim of the study was to investigate the treatment for CI by surveying the ophthalmologists regarding the most common treatment modalities used in India. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four hundred questionnaires were distributed amongst ophthalmologists attending different sessions of the Delhi Ophthalmological Society annual conference held in April 2007. Two hundred and three ophthalmologists responded (response rate 50.75%). The responders included 109 private practitioners, 57 consultants attached to teaching institutes and 37 residents. RESULTS: The majority of ophthalmologists (66.7%) claimed encountering > 5% outpatient department patients with CI. Pencil push-ups therapy (PPT) was the most common first line of treatment offered by ophthalmologists (79%) followed by synoptophore exercises (18%). Only 3% referred the patients to optometrists. Thirty per cent ophthalmologists claimed good results with PPT, which was significantly higher in private practitioners (35%). Only 26% ophthalmologists explained physiological diplopia to patients on a regular basis and reported significantly higher percentage of patients (46.3%) with good results. Only 12.3% ophthalmologists needed to refer > 30% patients for synoptophore exercises. For failure of PPT 86.7% considered lack of compliance as the major reason as perceived by ophthalmologists. CONCLUSIONS: This survey suggested that most ophthalmic practitioners prescribed PPT as the initial treatment for CI and had satisfactory results with PPT. The majority of the practitioners did not explain to the patient about physiological diplopia. Explaining physiological diplopia may improve outcome, as perceived from the survey.