Jing Jin1, Dorothy Hendricks2, Sharon Lehman2, Amanda Friess2, Jonathan Salvin2, Julia Reid3, Jingyun Wang4. 1. Department of Pediatric Ophthalmology, Nemours Children's Health, P.O. Box 269, Wilmington, DE, 19899, USA. Jing.jin@nemours.org. 2. Department of Pediatric Ophthalmology, Nemours Children's Health, P.O. Box 269, Wilmington, DE, 19899, USA. 3. Department of Pediatric Ophthalmology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Department of Biological and Vision Sciences, State University of New York College of Optometry, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: It is unknown if foveal hypoplasia in full-term born children differs in structure and function from that observed in children born preterm. We compared macular structure and visual function in children with history of prematurity and full-term children diagnosed with foveal hypoplasia. METHODS: We compared three groups of subjects (3-18 years old): (1) full-term hypoplasia (FH, n = 56, gestational age ≥ 36 weeks); (2) preterm hypoplasia (n = 57, gestational age ≤ 31 weeks, birth weight ≤ 1500 g); (3) control (n = 54), full-term normal. Using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography volume-scan images, macular structure within 3 mm of Early-Treatment-Diabetic-Retinopathy-Study circle was segmented. Total, inner, and outer foveal thickness of right eyes were compared. Foveal hypoplasia was graded according to the Leicester Grading System. RESULTS: The mean total foveal thickness in micrometers was 263 ± 19 for the control, 299 ± 30 for the full-term hypoplasia, and 294 ± 28 for the preterm hypoplasia groups (F = 33, p < 0.001). Foveal inner retinal layer thickness differed among groups (p < 0.001), but not in the outer layers (p = 0.10). The full-term hypoplasia group had significantly thicker foveal inner layers (p < 0.05) and greater frequency of higher-grade hypoplasia than the preterm hypoplasia group. LogMAR visual acuity was worse in the full-term hypoplasia group (0.35 ± 0.36) than in the preterm hypoplasia group (0.19 ± 0.27, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Fovea was thicker in both hypoplasia groups. The full-term hypoplasia group is associated with more severe structure changes and poorer visual function than the preterm hypoplasia group.
PURPOSE: It is unknown if foveal hypoplasia in full-term born children differs in structure and function from that observed in children born preterm. We compared macular structure and visual function in children with history of prematurity and full-term children diagnosed with foveal hypoplasia. METHODS: We compared three groups of subjects (3-18 years old): (1) full-term hypoplasia (FH, n = 56, gestational age ≥ 36 weeks); (2) preterm hypoplasia (n = 57, gestational age ≤ 31 weeks, birth weight ≤ 1500 g); (3) control (n = 54), full-term normal. Using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography volume-scan images, macular structure within 3 mm of Early-Treatment-Diabetic-Retinopathy-Study circle was segmented. Total, inner, and outer foveal thickness of right eyes were compared. Foveal hypoplasia was graded according to the Leicester Grading System. RESULTS: The mean total foveal thickness in micrometers was 263 ± 19 for the control, 299 ± 30 for the full-term hypoplasia, and 294 ± 28 for the preterm hypoplasia groups (F = 33, p < 0.001). Foveal inner retinal layer thickness differed among groups (p < 0.001), but not in the outer layers (p = 0.10). The full-term hypoplasia group had significantly thicker foveal inner layers (p < 0.05) and greater frequency of higher-grade hypoplasia than the preterm hypoplasia group. LogMAR visual acuity was worse in the full-term hypoplasia group (0.35 ± 0.36) than in the preterm hypoplasia group (0.19 ± 0.27, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Fovea was thicker in both hypoplasia groups. The full-term hypoplasia group is associated with more severe structure changes and poorer visual function than the preterm hypoplasia group.
Authors: Daniel X Hammer; Nicusor V Iftimia; R Daniel Ferguson; Chad E Bigelow; Teoman E Ustun; Amber M Barnaby; Anne B Fulton Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2008-01-25 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: John T McAllister; Adam M Dubis; Diane M Tait; Shawn Ostler; Jungtae Rha; Kimberly E Stepien; C Gail Summers; Joseph Carroll Journal: Vision Res Date: 2010-02-10 Impact factor: 1.886
Authors: Anja K Mayer; Muhammad Mahajnah; Mervyn G Thomas; Yuval Cohen; Adib Habib; Martin Schulze; Gail D E Maconachie; Basamat AlMoallem; Elfride De Baere; Birgit Lorenz; Elias I Traboulsi; Susanne Kohl; Abdussalam Azem; Peter Bauer; Irene Gottlob; Rajech Sharkia; Bernd Wissinger Journal: Brain Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Rebecca R Mastey; Michalis Georgiou; Christopher S Langlo; Angelos Kalitzeos; Emily J Patterson; Thomas Kane; Navjit Singh; Ajoy Vincent; Anthony T Moore; Stephen H Tsang; Jonathan H Lin; Marielle P Young; M Elizabeth Hartnett; Elise Héon; Susanne Kohl; Michel Michaelides; Joseph Carroll Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2019-06-03 Impact factor: 4.799