4.1 Article

Comparison of iridocorneal angle in infants with retinopathy of prematurity and healthy infants using spectral domain optical coherence tomography

Journal

JOURNAL OF AAPOS
Volume 18, Issue 4, Pages 344-346

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2014.02.016

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE To compare measurements and morphologic characteristics of the iridocorneal angle in preterm infants with retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) and healthy infants using spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). METHODS In this observational, case control study, the eyes of children with ROP and healthy controls under 1 year old were imaged using SD-OCT without sedation to capture the iridocorneal angle. The ROP staging was made by a pediatric retinal specialist. The following measurements were analyzed with custom software: angle opening distance (AOD(500)) at 500 mu m; angle opening in degrees (AOG); and angle recess area (ARA(750)). RESULTS A total of 27 eyes of 14 children with ROP and 21 of 13 children without ROP were included. The mean gestational age of children in the ROP group was 30 weeks; of the controls, 35 weeks. The mean birth weight in the ROP group was 1,545 g; in the non-ROP group 2,100 g. Mean age at the time of the study was 18.1 (ROP group) vs 25.7 weeks (non-ROP). In the ROP group AOD(500) was 477 mu m (95% CI, 358-597 mu m), AOG was 37.3 degrees (95% CI, 30.4 degrees-44.3 degrees), and ARA(750) was 231 mm(2) (CI 95%, 171-291 mm(2)). The same parameters on the non-ROP group were 400 mu m (CI 95% 333-468 mu m), 34.7 degrees (CI 95% 30.4 degrees-39 degrees), and 203 mm(2) (95% CI, 171-236 mm(2)). The iris showed a more convex pattern on eyes with ROP (56% vs 23%). CONCLUSIONS In this study cohort, children with ROP showed higher AOD(500), AOG, and ARA(750), perhaps because of different patterns of physiological development in children with ROP.

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