Carolyn Wu1, Robert A Petersen, Deborah K VanderVeen. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Children's Hospital Boston, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02116, USA. carolyn.wu@childrens.harvard.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: Indirect ophthalmoscopy is the gold standard for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening. Screening for ROP with digital imaging has been proposed as a possible alternative. Our goal was to evaluate the longitudinal clinical outcomes of employing digital imaging to detect high-risk ROP. METHODS: Serial RetCam imaging and indirect ophthalmoscopy were performed on 43 premature infants. A masked reader evaluated the images and made management recommendations that were compared with indirect ophthalmoscopy results. Successful screening was determined by correctly identifying progression to prethreshold or threshold disease with referral for indirect ophthalmoscopy. Unsuccessful screening was determined by failure to identify prethreshold or threshold disease, inaccurately detecting prethreshold or threshold disease, or inability to evaluate for ROP. RESULTS: No cases of prethreshold or threshold disease were missed by the reader. The reader overestimated prethreshold or threshold disease in 5% of cases. Initial screening in 21% of cases could not be evaluated for ROP secondary to poor image quality. Digital photography had a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 97.5% in detecting prethreshold and threshold ROP. Positive-predictive value of digital photography was 67% and negative-predictive value was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Screening and management of ROP using RetCam imaging did not fail to detect prethreshold or threshold disease when images could be obtained. Ophthalmologic examinations were needed in 20% of cases that did not reach threshold or prethreshold disease because of poor image quality or overestimation of ROP. RetCam screening may safely reduce the overall number of indirect ophthalmologic examinations required.
PURPOSE: Indirect ophthalmoscopy is the gold standard for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening. Screening for ROP with digital imaging has been proposed as a possible alternative. Our goal was to evaluate the longitudinal clinical outcomes of employing digital imaging to detect high-risk ROP. METHODS: Serial RetCam imaging and indirect ophthalmoscopy were performed on 43 premature infants. A masked reader evaluated the images and made management recommendations that were compared with indirect ophthalmoscopy results. Successful screening was determined by correctly identifying progression to prethreshold or threshold disease with referral for indirect ophthalmoscopy. Unsuccessful screening was determined by failure to identify prethreshold or threshold disease, inaccurately detecting prethreshold or threshold disease, or inability to evaluate for ROP. RESULTS: No cases of prethreshold or threshold disease were missed by the reader. The reader overestimated prethreshold or threshold disease in 5% of cases. Initial screening in 21% of cases could not be evaluated for ROP secondary to poor image quality. Digital photography had a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 97.5% in detecting prethreshold and threshold ROP. Positive-predictive value of digital photography was 67% and negative-predictive value was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Screening and management of ROP using RetCam imaging did not fail to detect prethreshold or threshold disease when images could be obtained. Ophthalmologic examinations were needed in 20% of cases that did not reach threshold or prethreshold disease because of poor image quality or overestimation of ROP. RetCam screening may safely reduce the overall number of indirect ophthalmologic examinations required.
Authors: Michael F Chiang; Michele Melia; Angela N Buffenn; Scott R Lambert; Franco M Recchia; Jennifer L Simpson; Michael B Yang Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Linda A Cernichiaro-Espinosa; Francisco J Olguin-Manriquez; Andree Henaine-Berra; Gerardo Garcia-Aguirre; Hugo Quiroz-Mercado; Maria A Martinez-Castellanos Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2016-01-14 Impact factor: 2.031
Authors: Jane S Myung; Rony Gelman; Grant D Aaker; Nathan M Radcliffe; R V Paul Chan; Michael F Chiang Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2011-10-22 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Rohini Rao; Nina J Jonsson; Camila Ventura; Rony Gelman; Martin A Lindquist; Daniel S Casper; Michael F Chiang Journal: Retina Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Joo-Yeon Lee; Yunling E Du; Osode Coki; John T Flynn; Justin Starren; Michael F Chiang Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2009-09-23 Impact factor: 3.117