Comparision between Manifest vs. Cycloplegic Photore fraction with MTI Photoscreener in Prematurity.
- Author:
June Seok RHEE
1
;
Sang Ki AHN
;
Bon Sool KOO
Author Information
1. Department of Ophthalmology, Sung-Ae General Hospital.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Cycloplegic photorefraction;
Non-cycloplegic photorefraction;
Photoscreener;
Prematurity
- MeSH:
Amblyopia;
Astigmatism;
Hospitals, General;
Humans;
Hyperopia;
Incidence;
Infant;
Infant, Newborn;
Infant, Premature;
Light Coagulation;
Masks;
Mass Screening;
Myopia;
Refractive Errors;
Retinoscopy;
Sensitivity and Specificity;
Strabismus
- From:Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society
2000;41(2):475-482
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
Amblyopia and strabismus are common in eyes of prematurity and the need for early detection of amblyopia and amblyogenic factors is widely recognized. So, we performed refraction in premature infants at the 6 months of age to evaluate the incidence and degree of myopia and the changes of refractive errors according to the development, disease course and photocoagulation therapy of retinopathy of prematurity[ROP]. It is the purpose of this study to evaluate the effectiveness of MTI[medical Technology, Inc]photoscreener by comparing the sensitivity and specificity between refractive errors determined by manifest photorefraction and cycloplegic photorefraction in 6-month-old premature infants in Sung-Ae General Hospital. Pass or fail screening data from photograph of 32 non-dilated and dilated premature infant were calculated by two masked observers, compared with the results of cycloplegic retinoscopy, and the statical analysis was carried out. In the cases of cycloplegic photorefraction, Ten eyes of myopia, 4 eyes of emetropia, and 50 eyes of hyperopia were found, and 21 eyes of astigmatism above 1.5D were also detected. Overall statistical analysis of sensitivity and specificity rate were 71.7% and 69.5%in manifest photorefraction, 87.5% and of 75%in cycloplegic photorefraction, respectively. In non-cycloplegic photorefraction, sensitivity of myopia and hyperopia were 92.8%, 65%, but in cycloplegic photorefraction, sensitivity of myopia and hyperopia were 75%, 100%, respectively. The outcomes of our study suggest that MTI photoscreener in cycloplegic photorefraction was more reliable than non-cycloplegic photorefraction. Myopia under 1D turned to hyperopia in cycloplegic photorefraction, so the sensitivity of that was not to be reliable, but the sensitivity of hyperopia was high. Thus, the authors can readily recommand this cycloplegic photorefraction in uncooperable infants to evalute the refractive error conveniently.
