Aims To determine longitudinal differences in foveal thickness in preschool-aged patients with or without a history of type I retinopathy of prematurity (ROP).
Methods A study of 201 eyes, including 32 laser±intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB)-treated eyes, 37 IVB-treated eyes, 14 spontaneously regressed ROP eyes, and 118 age-matched controls were enrolled in this study. The retinal thicknesses (full, inner and outer) were measured in the foveal area at 6-month intervals four consecutive times by optical coherence tomography.
Results The foveal thicknesses among the four groups were similar at all four visits (all p>0.05) after gestational age (GA) adjustment and remained similar with no differences after the full retinal thickness was divided into inner and outer thicknesses (all p>0.05). The full and outer foveal thicknesses of premature children increased over time (0.17 μm/month and 0.17 μm/month; p=0.0001 and 0.0003, respectively), but the inner foveal thickness remained unchanged with time (0.002 μm/month; p=0.09). Moreover, the positive correlation with best-corrected visual acuity was stronger for outer foveal thickness than for inner foveal thickness (γ=0.281, p<0.0001 and γ=0.181, p<0.0001, respectively).
Conclusion The thickness of fovea in laser±IVB-treated, IVB-treated, regressed ROP and preterm eyes showed no difference after GA adjustment. The whole and outer foveal thicknesses increased with time in preschool-aged children over a 1.5-year follow-up period, but the inner foveal thickness remained unchanged with time.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors Y-SL and W-MT drafted the manuscript. H-JT, Y-SH and C-CL contributed to the interpretation of data. W-CW designed the study and obtained grants. All authors read and approved the final manuscript as submitted. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work presented, including the accuracy and integrity of the findings reported. W-CW had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Funding This work was supported by Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Research Grants (CMRPG3I0071-3 and CMRPG3G0581-3), a Ministry of Science and Technology Research Grant (MOST 106-2314-B-182A-040-MY3) and a Ministry of Health and Welfare of Taiwan Grant (MOHW108-TDU-B-212-133005). The sponsors had no role in the design or conduct of this research.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.