The usefulness of the Retinomax autorefractor for childhood screening validated against a Danish preterm cohort examined at the age of 4 years

Early ophthalmic growth deficits in preterm-born children are not compensated for during later development

The renewed focus on eye growth in preterm-born children was primarily triggered by Danish cohort studies, including the Copenhagen Project, which focused on children born from 1959-1961. The retinotoxic effects of excessive oxygen on premature neonates had long been clarified and therapeutically adjusted for. Later, ultrasound oculometry and keratometry established that ocular size deficits, linked to development, also occurred in normally developing children, not just frail outliers. This indicated that general catch-up had not been achieved. This paper discusses whether one early segment of eye development does not occur in preterm, and here even in more robust neonates, without later compensation.

Pre-Cycloplegic Exam Benefit of Photoscreening and Accommodation-Relaxing Skiascopy

Background

Seeking a quick way to estimate refractions for challenging pediatric patients, we studied two non-contact methods with particular attention to accuracy and level of stress in uncovering cycloplegic hyperopia.

Methods

Newly referred and follow-up pediatric eye patients had timed school bus accommodation-relaxing skiascopy (SBARS) and Plusoptix A12 (Px) photoscreener testing before cyclopentolate 1% confirmatory examinations. The ABCD ellipsoid univariate method based on relative blur and vector components was used to compare dry sphero-cylinder refraction estimates with cycloplegic. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine screening value.

Results

Three compared refractions were attempted in 191 racially diverse children of whom 100 were age 0.2-3.9 years and 91 were 4 to 14 years. Plusoptix failed to yield a result in 21 and an additional 21 were interpreted as an excess sphere. Median spherical equivalent did not differ between Px and SBARS for 149 with Px readings but in hyperopic patients, Plusoptix uncovered 27% less hyperopia. The ellipsoid for SBARS of 0.8 was better than 2.4 for Plusoptix (Mann-Whitney p<0.001). Plusoptix was fastest (3-15 seconds) followed by SBARS (15-30 seconds) compared to 30-45 minutes for cycloplegic exam.

Conclusion

Non-contact quick refractive methods enhanced confirmatory cycloplegic pediatric exam in high-risk pediatric patients.

Instrument Referral Criteria for PlusoptiX, SPOT and 2WIN Targeting 2021 AAPOS Guidelines

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use:

https://youtu.be/cPqIFE1_Eqo

Better one or two? A systematic review of portable automated refractors

INTRODUCTION

More than 400 million people suffer from visual impairment globally, with more than half due to uncorrected refractive error. Autorefraction (AR) is the most common examination performed prior to prescribing glasses. As technology advances, so has the accuracy and number of portable autorefractors available. Portable technology has become acutely important with the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and the conversion of in-person clinical evaluations to remote telemedicine encounters. Patients and providers want to do as much as possible remotely. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review of the accuracy and effectiveness of available portable automated refractors compared to the current standard of care, subjective refraction (SR).

METHODS

A literature search of PubMED, Embase and ClinicalTrials.gov 97 unique publications in English on portable autorefractors. Twelve studies comparing a portable AR device to at least one form of SR were systematically included in this review.

RESULTS

There were four portable autorefractors (Netra, Quicksee, Retinomax and SVOne) studied against SR. There was high patient acceptance of glasses prescriptions by the Quicksee alone, with 87% subjects seeing the same or better than SR. Quicksee was more accurate than Netra and Retinomax. SVOne was preferred over Netra and outperformed Retinomax in multiple measures, despite Retinomax being the fastest test.

DISCUSSION

There are numerous portable autorefractors available, but few were compared against SR. Quicksee and SVOne are the most accurate and patient-preferred devices. Quicksee was the most accurate, and it performed clinically the same as SR in some reports.

As-indicated versus routine vision screening of preterm children: a 17-year retrospective regional study

PURPOSE

To investigate outcomes of routine vision screening compared to as-indicated ophthalmological investigation of all children born preterm in a Danish region from 1997 to 2014.

METHODS

All children born preterm (gestation age < 32 weeks or birthweight < 1500 g) screened for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) were divided into two groups. From 1997 to 2009, only children treated for ROP or referred for visual problems received ophthalmological investigation (as-indicated group). From 2010 to 2014, all ROP-screened infants were offered ophthalmological investigation at 6 months and 3 years of age (screening group).

RESULTS

A total of 560 children were included in the as-indicated period, 41 and 87 were referred for ophthalmological investigation at 6 months and 3 years, respectively. In the screening period, 295 children were included, 251 and 150 of whom underwent vision evaluation at 6 months and 3 years, respectively. Mean visual acuity was 4.1 cycles per degree with Teller acuity cards at 6 months and 0.78 decimal at 3 years. At 3 years, 2.7%(n = 11) in the as-indicated versus 3.5%(n = 10) screening group had visual acuity < 6/18 (p = 0.24). Cerebral palsy (n = 28) and epilepsy (n = 5) were significantly related to vision impairment (p = 0.001/0.006), while treated ROP was not (n = 13). Refractive error was common at 3 years (61%), especially astigmatism (50%). Gestational age, birthweight and ROP were not associated with vision impairment or refractive error.

CONCLUSION

Screening preterm children at 6 months and 3 years did not reveal more visually impaired children compared to examination when indicated.

Instrument-based pediatric vision screening

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose is to review currently available instruments for vision screening in young children.

RECENT FINDINGS

Instrumentation continues to evolve. Although the current generation of photoscreeners and autorefractors strive to identify amblyopia risk factors, newer technology aims to directly identify amblyopia in young children. Acceptance of instrument-based vision screening for this population has led to increased reimbursement for the procedure in primary care practices.

SUMMARY

Instrument-based vision screening in the young child is an accepted method of screening for amblyopia. Innovations in instrumentation will continue to improve its implementation.