Journal of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus · 2026
Examining Guidelines for Late Follow-up of Non-treatment-Requiring Retinopathy of Prematurity.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Lam Laurel, Pastore Samantha, Vemula Sudheshna, Bayraktutar Betul, Wasserman Barry N
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate the incidence of visual complications in low-risk, non-treatment-requiring infants following retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening and determine whether workforce constraints in pediatric ophthalmology and limited resources affect compliance with current guidelines advising 4- to 6-month ophthalmic follow-up for all infants with ROP.
METHODS: This retrospective case-control study included premature infants with resolved non-treatment- requiring ROP (NT-ROP) evaluated 6 to 12 months after screening and full-term infants younger than 19 months referred for ophthalmologic evaluation following failed routine vision screening. Data were collected over a 14-month period in a private practice setting. Refractive and ophthalmic outcomes were compared between groups. Outcomes included manifest strabismus in primary gaze and visually significant refractive error: myopia (>3.00 diopters [D]), hyperopia (>4.00 D), astigmatism (>3.00 cylinder), or anisometropia (>1.25 D difference).
RESULTS: Sixty-three infants with NT-ROP and 39 full-term infants referred after failed routine pediatric vision screening were included. Incidence of late visual complications was low in both groups, with no significant difference observed between groups on follow-up. (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Infants with resolved NT-ROP did not exhibit a greater incidence of late visual complications compared to full-term infants with failed routine vision screening. These preliminary findings will require validation with larger cohorts, but suggest that for infants with mild, non-treatment-requiring ROP, routine pediatric photoscreening 4 to 6 months after ROP screening may suffice as an alternative to full cycloplegic dilated examination. This approach could improve resource allocation without compromising surveillance. Study limitations include its retrospective, single-center design and small sample size. Larger, multi-center studies are needed to validate these findings.
METHODS: This retrospective case-control study included premature infants with resolved non-treatment- requiring ROP (NT-ROP) evaluated 6 to 12 months after screening and full-term infants younger than 19 months referred for ophthalmologic evaluation following failed routine vision screening. Data were collected over a 14-month period in a private practice setting. Refractive and ophthalmic outcomes were compared between groups. Outcomes included manifest strabismus in primary gaze and visually significant refractive error: myopia (>3.00 diopters [D]), hyperopia (>4.00 D), astigmatism (>3.00 cylinder), or anisometropia (>1.25 D difference).
RESULTS: Sixty-three infants with NT-ROP and 39 full-term infants referred after failed routine pediatric vision screening were included. Incidence of late visual complications was low in both groups, with no significant difference observed between groups on follow-up. (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Infants with resolved NT-ROP did not exhibit a greater incidence of late visual complications compared to full-term infants with failed routine vision screening. These preliminary findings will require validation with larger cohorts, but suggest that for infants with mild, non-treatment-requiring ROP, routine pediatric photoscreening 4 to 6 months after ROP screening may suffice as an alternative to full cycloplegic dilated examination. This approach could improve resource allocation without compromising surveillance. Study limitations include its retrospective, single-center design and small sample size. Larger, multi-center studies are needed to validate these findings.