RESUMEN
COVID-19 infection has been linked to various ocular complications and complaints, but not to refractive errors. In this case report, we present ethnically diverse patients who reported asthenopic symptoms shortly after recovering from COVID-19 infection. The hyperopic shift in the refractive error, post-COVID could indicate the ciliary body muscle’s inability to sustain accommodation, resulting in asthenopia. Hence, refractive errors should also be considered as a post-COVID complication, even if the magnitude is small, especially when patients have a headache and other asthenopic symptoms. Performing dynamic retinoscopy and cycloplegic refraction will also aid in the better management of these patients
RESUMEN
Background: Ocular morbidity with an early onset can have a significant impact on the long-term development of an individual. Hence, careful assessment of visual functions early on is very important. However, testing infants always poses a challenge. Standard tools to assess infants’ visual acuity, ocular motility, and so on rely on the clinician’s quick subjective judgments of an infant’s looking behavior. Eye movements are usually observed from head rotations or spontaneous eye movements in infants. Judging eye movements in the presence of strabismus is even more challenging. Purpose: This video shows a 4-month-old infant’s viewing behavior captured during a visual field screening study. The recorded video aided in the examination of this infant that was referred to a tertiary eye care clinic. The additional information captured through the perimeter testing is discussed. Synopsis: The Pediatric Perimeter device was developed to address visual field extent and gaze reaction time assessment in the pediatric population. As a part of a large-scale screening study, infants’ visual fields were tested. During this screening, a 4-month-old infant presented with a ptosis in the left eye. The infant was consistently missing the light stimuli presented in the left upper quadrant in the binocular visual field testing. The infant was referred to a tertiary eye care center to a pediatric ophthalmologist for further examination. During clinical examination, the infant was suspected to either have congenital ptosis or monocular elevation deficit. But the diagnosis of the eye condition was unsure owing to the poor cooperation of the infant. With the aid of Pediatric Perimeter, the ocular motility was consistent with limitation of elevation in abduction, indicating a possible monocular elevation deficit with congenital ptosis. The infant was also noted to have Marcus Gunn jaw-winking phenomenon. The parents were assured and asked for a review in 3 months. In the subsequent follow-up, the Pediatric Perimeter testing was performed, and the recording showed a full extraocular motility in both eyes. Hence, the diagnosis was changed to only congenital ptosis. The probable explanation for missing the target in the left upper quadrant in the first visit is postulated further. The left upper quadrant is the superotemporal visual field of the left eye and the superonasal visual field of the right eye. As the left eye had ptosis, the superotemporal visual field could have been obstructed and hence the stimuli missed. The normative extent for the nasal and superior visual field is just about 30° for a 4-month-old infant. Hence, the right eye also perhaps missed the stimuli in its superonasal visual field extent. This video highlights the utility of the Pediatric Perimeter device in providing a magnified view of the infant’s face along with greater visibility of ocular features from the infrared video imaging. This can potentially help the clinician to easily observe different ocular/facial abnormalities such as extraocular motility disorders, lid functions, and in identifying unequal pupil size, media opacities, and nystagmus. Highlights: The presence of congenital ptosis in younger infants might predispose as superior visual field defect and could also masquerade as a limitation in elevation.
RESUMEN
Purpose: To assess the feasibility of measuring patients’ visual acuity (VA) in their homes by their caregivers. Methods: Patients consulting in a tertiary eye care institute were prospectively enrolled with informed consent. All underwent standard COMPlog distance VA testing. Patients and caregivers were oriented to test distance VA using the Peek Acuity app. The app was installed on the caregiver’s or patient’s smartphone. The patient’s VA was measured by the caregiver in the clinic (baseline value) under supervision. After 1 week, the caregivers recorded the patient’s VA with the Peek Acuity app at their home and reported the value in a telephone consultation. A questionnaire to assess the ease of using the app was administered at both the baseline visit and 1 week later. Results: A total of 100 patients (age group: 13 to 76 years) and 100 caregivers (age group: 17 to 65 years) participated. VA measurements with the Peek Acuity app were comparable with COMPlog (P > 0.1) both during the baseline and after 1?week measurement, regardless of the underlying ocular condition or educational level of the caregivers/patients. Most caregivers (95%) felt the app was easy to use. Conclusion: Though the Peek Acuity app was originally developed for health care workers to be used in field visits, we found that with proper orientation, the layperson can also use it. Such orientation can enable caregivers to effectively measure VA at home. Such a tool would enhance teleophthalmology consultations and can minimize the need for short follow?up visits