Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 329
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2006  |  Volume : 54  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 35-38

Screening for retinopathy of prematurity-a comparison between binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy and RetCam 120


Vitreo-Retinal Services, Aravind Eye Hospital and Postgraduate Institute of Ophthalmology, Coimbatore, India

Correspondence Address:
Parag K Shah
Department of Vitreous and Retina, Aravind Eye Hospital, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore- 641 014, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.21612

Rights and Permissions

Aim: To compare the photographic screening for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) using RetCam 120 with binocular indirect ophthalmoscope (BIO), which is the current gold standard. Setting and Design: Prospective, comparative study. Materials and Methods: A total of 87 RetCam examinations were performed on 27 premature babies. They were stored in a separate file after deleting the identifying information. At the same visit using the BIO with scleral depression, an experienced vitreoretinal surgeon evaluated the fundus in detail. A masked examiner then evaluated the RetCam photographs for presence or absence of ROP, the stage and zone of the disease, and the presence or absence of plus disease. These data were then compared with the BIO findings to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and the positive and negative predictive values of the method. Results: ROP was detected in 63 of 87 examinations by BIO and in 56 of 87 RetCam examinations. Nine RetCam examinations were false-negative and two were false-positive. Sensitivity of RetCam was 85.71% (54/63) and specificity was 91.66% (22/24). The positive and negative predictive values were 96.43% and 70.97% respectively. Conclusion: Nine cases having ROP were missed by the RetCam. All these cases were either in zone 3 or the outer part of zone 2, which later regressed. These were missed mostly because of the restricted mobility of the camera head caused by its size and the barrier caused by the lid speculum arms. No case of threshold ROP was missed. RetCam may replace BIO for screening of ROP.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed8641    
    Printed247    
    Emailed13    
    PDF Downloaded753    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 23    

Recommend this journal