Abstract
IntroductionThere is some discrepancy regarding what gestational age should be used as the criterion for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening examinations. The purpose of this study is to determine whether screening infants born at 30 weeks or less gestational age results in failure to diagnose type 1 ROP compared to screening infants at 32 weeks or less gestational age.MethodsAn Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved retrospective chart review of premature infants born at 31 weeks gestational age or later who underwent ROP screening examinations between June 2008 and December 2011 was performed.Results101 infants met the inclusion the criteria. Four infants developed type 2 ROP and none developed type 1 ROP. Of the infants with type 2 ROP, two had a birthweight of less than 1500g, one had a birthweight of 1545 g, and one infant had a complicated clinical course.Discussion4% of infants in our study developed type 2 ROP and none required treatment. The infants that developed ROP had a lower birthweight and additional comorbidities.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that it may be feasible to reduce the recommended gestational age criterion for retinopathy of prematurity screening examinations from 32 weeks to 30 weeks or less gestational age. These findings are consistent with published recommendations. Eliminating unnecessary examinations would be cost effective. IntroductionThere is some discrepancy regarding what gestational age should be used as the criterion for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening examinations. The purpose of this study is to determine whether screening infants born at 30 weeks or less gestational age results in failure to diagnose type 1 ROP compared to screening infants at 32 weeks or less gestational age. There is some discrepancy regarding what gestational age should be used as the criterion for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening examinations. The purpose of this study is to determine whether screening infants born at 30 weeks or less gestational age results in failure to diagnose type 1 ROP compared to screening infants at 32 weeks or less gestational age. MethodsAn Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved retrospective chart review of premature infants born at 31 weeks gestational age or later who underwent ROP screening examinations between June 2008 and December 2011 was performed. An Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved retrospective chart review of premature infants born at 31 weeks gestational age or later who underwent ROP screening examinations between June 2008 and December 2011 was performed. Results101 infants met the inclusion the criteria. Four infants developed type 2 ROP and none developed type 1 ROP. Of the infants with type 2 ROP, two had a birthweight of less than 1500g, one had a birthweight of 1545 g, and one infant had a complicated clinical course. 101 infants met the inclusion the criteria. Four infants developed type 2 ROP and none developed type 1 ROP. Of the infants with type 2 ROP, two had a birthweight of less than 1500g, one had a birthweight of 1545 g, and one infant had a complicated clinical course. Discussion4% of infants in our study developed type 2 ROP and none required treatment. The infants that developed ROP had a lower birthweight and additional comorbidities. 4% of infants in our study developed type 2 ROP and none required treatment. The infants that developed ROP had a lower birthweight and additional comorbidities. ConclusionsOur findings suggest that it may be feasible to reduce the recommended gestational age criterion for retinopathy of prematurity screening examinations from 32 weeks to 30 weeks or less gestational age. These findings are consistent with published recommendations. Eliminating unnecessary examinations would be cost effective. Our findings suggest that it may be feasible to reduce the recommended gestational age criterion for retinopathy of prematurity screening examinations from 32 weeks to 30 weeks or less gestational age. These findings are consistent with published recommendations. Eliminating unnecessary examinations would be cost effective.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.