Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2018
Non-contact retinal imaging compared to indirect ophthalmoscopy for retinopathy of prematurity screening: infant safety profile.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Prakalapakorn S Grace, Stinnett Sandra S, Freedman Sharon F, Wallace David K, Riggins J Wayne, Gallaher Keith J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Most retinopathy of prematurity screening involves an ophthalmologist performing indirect ophthalmoscopy, which can be stressful to infants. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety profile (using cardiopulmonary events as an indicator) of imaging infants with a non-contact retinal camera compared to examining them using indirect ophthalmoscopy.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of 99 infants at a community hospital who were examined using indirect ophthalmoscopy and imaged using a non-contact retinal camera for retinopathy of prematurity. We evaluated the difference in the occurrence of safety events (i.e., clinically significant bradycardia, tachycardia, oxygen desaturation, or apnea) following the clinical examination versus retinal imaging.
RESULT: Safety events occurred after 0.8% (n = 1) of imaging sessions and 5.8% (n = 18) of clinical examinations (mean difference = -0.055 (p = 0.015), favoring imaging).
CONCLUSION: Retinal imaging with a non-contact camera was well tolerated and less stressful to infants compared to indirect ophthalmoscopy by an ophthalmologist.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of 99 infants at a community hospital who were examined using indirect ophthalmoscopy and imaged using a non-contact retinal camera for retinopathy of prematurity. We evaluated the difference in the occurrence of safety events (i.e., clinically significant bradycardia, tachycardia, oxygen desaturation, or apnea) following the clinical examination versus retinal imaging.
RESULT: Safety events occurred after 0.8% (n = 1) of imaging sessions and 5.8% (n = 18) of clinical examinations (mean difference = -0.055 (p = 0.015), favoring imaging).
CONCLUSION: Retinal imaging with a non-contact camera was well tolerated and less stressful to infants compared to indirect ophthalmoscopy by an ophthalmologist.