4.1 Article

Progression of myopia and high myopia in the Early Treatment for Retinopathy of Prematurity Study: Findings at 4 to 6 years of age

Journal

JOURNAL OF AAPOS
Volume 17, Issue 2, Pages 124-128

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2012.10.025

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Eye Institute of the National Institutes of Health, U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland [5U10 EY12471, 5U10 EY12472]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE To report the prevalence of myopia and high myopia in children <6 years of age born pre- term with birth weights <1251 g who developed high-risk prethreshold retinopathy of prematurity and who participated in the Early Treatment for Retinopathy of Prematurity trial. METHODS Surviving children from the cohort of 401 participants who had developed high-risk prethreshold ROP in one or both eyes underwent cycloplegic retinoscopy at 6 and 9 months corrected age and yearly between 2 and 6 years postnatal age. Eyes were randomized to receive treatment at high-risk prethreshold ROP or conventional management with treatment only if threshold ROP developed. Myopia (spherical equivalent >= 0.25 D) or high myopia (>= 5.00 D) in eyes at 4-, 5-, and 6-year examinations was reported. RESULTS At ages 4, 5, and 6 years, there was no difference in the percentage of eyes with myopia (range, 64.8%-69.9%) and eyes with high myopia (range, 35.3%-39.4%) between earlier treated and conventionally managed eyes. CONCLUSIONS Approximately two-thirds of eyes with high-risk prethreshold ROP during the neonatal period are likely to be myopic into the preschool and early school years. In addition, the increase in the proportion of eyes with high myopia that had been observed in both earlier-treated and conventionally managed eyes between ages 6 months and 3 years does not continue between ages 3 and 6 years.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available