Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP): Easy Abstain. | ||
| Annals of Neonatology | ||
| Article 1, Volume 1, Issue 1, January 2019, Pages 1-2 PDF (601.63 K) | ||
| Document Type: Editorial | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/anj.2019.45811 | ||
| Author | ||
| Mohamed Hashim* | ||
| Pediatric Department Minia university , Egypt | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is one of the major problems affecting preterm infants admitted to NICUs. ROP now is spreading and more cases were recorded every year. This spreading may be due to several factors like the advanced services for sick neonates especially NICU services, respiratory support using high advanced ventilators and emerging economies which has led to greater survival of preterm infants.ROP can affect both of preterm and full term infants and this is reflected in variation in the criteria for ROP screening in national guidelines for each country. Most of the guidelines depend on screening of preterm infants for ROP after discharge from NICUs using a gestational age (GA) of less than 32 weeks or a birth weight (BW) less than 1500 g as criteria for screening of preterm infants during the first 30 days of life after discharge. Infants born with a GA of more than 28 weeks or with a BW of more than 1200g are more liable for thight threatening ROP so they should be screened earlier during the first two weeks of life. Non-compliance of many families after discharge is one of the most obstacles facing ROP screening which may be due to financial or ignorance. Screening before discharge is highly recommended in these situations to ensure that all infants at risk have at laest one examination. In India this first examination of all eligible infants before discharge significantly increased compliance with screening after discharge from NICUUnfortunately up till now, all guidelines used for the detection and treatment of ROP have not reduced the spreading of it all over the world. This may be due to the variability in health systems and health financing between countries as well as variation in the socioeconomic status of families of preterm infants reflected on the follow-up visits. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| : Retinopathy; prematurity; Screening | ||
| References | ||
|
1. Clare E. Gilbert. Screening for retinopathy of prematurity: does one size fit all? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed, July 2016 ; 101 (4): 280-281
2.Blencowe H, Lawn JE, Vazques T, ET AL. Preterm –associated visual impairment and estimates of retinopathy of prematurity at regional and global levels for 2010, Pediatr Res 2013, 74 (suppl): 35-49
3. Binenbaum G, Algorithms for the prediction of retinopathy based on postnatal weight gain. Clin Perinatol 2013, 40:261-70.
4. Zin AA, Moreira ME, Bunce C, et al. Retinopathy of prematurity in 7 neonatal units in Rio de Janeiro: Screening criteria and workload implications. Pediatrics 2010:126:e410-1
5. Vinekar A, Gilbert C, Dogra M, et al. The KIDROP model of combining strategies for providing Retinopathy of prematurity Screening in undeserved areas in India using wide-field imaging tele-medicine, nonphysician graders and smart phone reporting. Indian J Opthalmol 2014:62:41-9.
6. Vinekar A, Jayadev C, Mangalesh S, et al.Role of tele-medecine in retinopathy of prematurity screening in rural outreach centters in India—a report of 20, 214 imaging sessions in the KIDROP program.Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2015:20 335-45
7. Gelbert C, Wormald R, Fielder A, et al. potential for aparadigm change in the detection of retinopathy of prematurity requiring treatment. Arch Dis Child fetal neonatal Ed 2016: 101:6-9. | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 263 PDF Download: 288 |
||
