ABSTRACT
Purpose: Ocular morbidities like high refractive error, strabismus, and amblyopia are common among laser-treated retinopathy of prematurity children (ROP). Long-term optical status and refractive outcomes including the sensory outcomes were less investigated in these children from this region. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the long-term outcome (refractive, biometric profile, sensory) of treatment for ROP using laser. Methods: This study is a retrospective, cross-sectional, observational, and intervention research among 6–15-year-old children who underwent laser for ROP with a minimum of 6-year follow-up. Results: Eighty lasered eyes of 41 children were assessed. Mean age was 9.71 years (±3.39). Seventy-three eyes (91.2%) achieved visual acuity better than 20/40. The mean visual acuity in LogMAR was 0.18 (20/30). The mean spherical equivalence was ?5.29 D ± 4.9. Mean astigmatism measured was ?1.53 DC (range: +0.50 DC to ?4.5DC). Fifty-three eyes (66.25%) had significant astigmatism. The mean axial length was 23.5 ± 1.35 (21–26) mm. Mean lens thickness was 3.76 ± 0.30 (3.03–4.34) mm. Correlation analysis among the low and high spherical equivalent group signified that axial length (P value = 0.001), visual acuity (P value = 0.0002), and myopic shift (P value = 0.0006) were found to be statistically significant. Stereopsis better than 480 s of arc for near was observed in 41% children. Structural posterior pole sequelae developed in 3 eyes (3.75%). Conclusion: A significant number of children with high myopia, astigmatism, and strabismus had satisfactory visual outcome observed at long-term follow-up after treatment for ROP using laser. Our study revealed that myopia was influenced by an increase in axial length than the lens thickness.
ABSTRACT
We are presenting a case of premature baby born at 32 weeks of gestation who was under regular follow-up with our retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) tele-screening team. During final follow-up at 41 weeks of postconceptional age, anterior segment image captured with RetCam showed a retrolental mass lesion in right eye resembling retinoblastoma or medulloepithelioma. The baby was referred to our base hospital for further evaluation, where a detailed examination showed no retrolental lesion or intraocular mass. This is the first case where imaging artifact, despite use of high-quality imaging system by well-trained staff, during ROP tele-screening appeared like a retrolental mass lesion and resulted in false-positive referral.