Purpose: To evaluate the demography, aetiology, type and outcome of paediatric ocular trauma in tertiary centre in Malaysia. Method: We retrospectively studied 118 eyes from 117 patients over a period of 36 months (January 2006 to December 2008). All ocular injuries in patients aged 12 and below seen in the Ophthalmology Department for the first time were included in this study. Results: Mean age of patients was 6.1±3.0 years. 68 cases (58.2%) occurred in pre-school children, whereas 49 (41.9%) in school-aged children. Boys accounted for 65.8% of cases. There was no predilection for either right or the left eye. 47% of cases (56 patients) occurred in Malay. Most of the injuries took place at home when the children were alone (p<0.05). Sharp objects were the commonest cause (45 cases, 38.1%). The majority of cases (103, 87.3%) were considered preventable. The frequency of open and closed globe injury was similar. Hyphema was more common in closed globe injury compared to open globe injury (p<0.05). Other associated injuries such as cataract, vitreous hemorrhage and retinal hemorrhage are similar between the two groups. Visual outcome is generally poor with only 34 eyes (28.8%) had no visual impairment. Conclusion: Ocular trauma in children is an important cause of visual loss. Most cases occurred at home and were preventable. Prevention through education is the best approach.

Objective: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of the conventional direct ophthalmoscope and the PanOptic ophthalmoscope in the detection of sight threatening retinopathy, as well as the “Ease of Use” of these equipments. Methods: 200 diabetics, newly referred from primary health physicians were examined. Fundus examinations were performed with pupil dilatation in a dark room. The examinations were performed by a single investigator using the PanOptic ophthalmoscope, the conventional direct ophthalmoscope and slit lamp biomicroscopy. Results: The overall sensitivity in detecting sight threatening retinopathy using the conventional direct ophthalmoscope was 73.2% (95% CI: 57.1-85.8%), specificity 93.7% (95% CI: 88.7-96.9%). For PanOptic ophthalmoscope, the overall sensitivity in detecting sight threatening retinopathy was 58.5% (95% CI: 42.1-73.7%), specificity 93.7% (95% CI: 88.7-96.9%). The conventional direct ophthalmoscope was 1.38 times (95% CI: 1.17-1.61 times) as easy to use compared to the PanOptic ophthalmoscope. Conclusion: The PanOptic ophthalmoscope is not superior to the conventional direct ophthalmoscope for the screening of Sight Threatening Retinopathy.