4.6 Article

Incidence of Retinopathy of Prematurity in the United States: 1997 through 2005

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 148, Issue 3, Pages 451-458

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2009.04.018

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. STANFORD UNIVERSITY, Stanford, California

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To determine the incidence of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) based on a national database and to identify baseline characteristics, demographic information, comorbidities, and surgical interventions. DESIGN: Retrospective study based on the National Inpatient Sample from 1997 through 2005. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample was queried for all newborn infants with and without ROP. Multi variate logistic regression was used to predict risk factors for ROP. RESULTS: Thirty-four million live births were recorded during the study period. The total ROP incidence was 0.17% overall and 15.58% for premature infants with length of stay of more than 28 days. Our results conclusively demonstrated the importance of low birth weight as a risk for ROP development in infants with length of stay of more than 28 days, as well as association with respiratory conditions, fetal hemorrhage, intraventricular hemorrhage, and blood transfer. An interesting finding was the protective effect conferred by hypoxia, necrotizing enterocolitis, and hemolytic disease of the newborn. Infants with ROP had a higher incidence of undergoing laser photocoagulation therapy, pars plana vitrectomy, and scleral buckle surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The current study represents a large, retrospective analysis of newborns with ROP. The multi, variate analysis emphasizes the role of birth weight in extended stay infants, as well as respiratory conditions, fetal hemorrhage, intraventricular hemorrhage, and blood transfer. (Am J Ophthalmol 2009;148:451-458. (C) 2009 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available