Advertisement

Newer Technologies for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus

  • Kara Tison
  • Aparna Ramasubramanian
Chapter
Part of the Current Practices in Ophthalmology book series (CUPROP)

Abstract

Medical innovations have impacted health care in the twenty-first century, and the adoption of technology into day-to-day patient care has been profound in the field of ophthalmology. The subspecialty of pediatric ophthalmology is no exception. The pediatric eye is critical and time sensitive as the visual development occurs in the first 8 years of life and hence early diagnosis and appropriate management of ocular disease in childhood is critical and has life-long consequences. In this chapter we will discuss the medical innovations that have impacted the subspecialty of pediatric ophthalmology in a major way, and we will discuss this under innovations in screening, diagnosis, and treatment.

Notes

Funding Sources

This work was supported in part by an unrestricted institutional grant from Research to Prevent Blindness, New York, NY.

References

  1. 1.
    Webber AL, Wood J. Amblyopia: prevalence, natural history, functional effects and treatment. Clin Exp Optom. 2005;88(6):365–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cotter SA, Cyert LA, Miller JM, et al. Vision screening for children 36 to <72 months: recommended practices. Optom Vis Sci. 2015;92:6–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kassem AM. Automated vision screening. In: Yanoff M, editor. Advances in ophthalmology and optometry. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2018. p. 87–98.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Donahue SP, Arthur B, Neely DE, et al. Guidelines for automated preschool vision screening: a 10-year, evidence-based update. J AAPOS. 2013;17:4–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Recommended Tools and Tests | The National Center for Children’s Vision Health. https://nationalcenter.preventblindness.org/recommended-tools-and-tests.
  6. 6.
    Vision in Preschoolers Study Group. Findings from the Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) Study. Optom Vis Sci. 2009;86:619–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gilbert C. Retinopathy of prematurity: a global perspective of the epidemics, population of babies at risk and implications for control. Early Hum Dev. 2008;84:77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Biten H, Redd TK, Moleta C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of ophthalmoscopy vs telemedicine in examinations for retinopathy of prematurity. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018;136(5):498–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang SK, Callaway NF, Wallenstein MB, Henderson MT, Leng T, Moshfeghi DM. SUNDROP: six years of screening for retinopathy of prematurity with telemedicine. Can J Ophthalmol. 2015;50(2):101–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Roemer S, Bergin C, Kaeser PF, Ambresin A. Assessment of macular vasculature of children with sickle cell disease compared to that of healthy controls using optical coherence tomography angiography. Retina. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000002321.
  11. 11.
    Sobral I, Rodrigues TM, Soares M, Seara M, Monteiro M, Paiva C, Castela R. OCT angiography findings in children with amblyopia. J AAPOS. 2018;22(4):286–289.e2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gołębiewska J, Olechowski A, Wysocka-Mincewicz M, et al. Optical coherence tomography angiography vessel density in children with type 1 diabetes. PLoS One. 2017;12(10):e0186479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vitale S, Sperduto RD, Ferris FL. Increased prevalence of myopia in the United States between 1971–1972 and 1999–2004. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127:1632–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gong Q, Janowski M, Luo M, et al. Efficacy and adverse effects of atropine in childhood myopia: a meta-analysis. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017;135:624–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holden BA, Fricke TR, Wilson DA, et al. Global prevalence of myopia and high myopia and temporal trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:1036–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Contact lens spectrum, issue: the truth about myopia. 2017. https://www.clspectrum.com/supplements/2017/august-2017/the-truth-about-myopia. Accessed 31 Oct 2018.
  17. 17.
    Mingguang H, Xiang F, Zeng Y, et al. Effect of time spent outdoors at school on the development of myopia among children in China. JAMA. 2015;314:1142–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Press DJ, Eiden BS. Myopia management in action. Rev Optom. 2018. https://www.reviewofoptometry.com/article/ro0218-myopia-management-in-action. Accessed 31 Oct 2018.
  19. 19.
    Davis RL, Eiden BS, Bennett ES, et al. Stabilizing Myopia By Accelerating Reshaping Technique (SMART) – study three year outcomes and overview. Adv Ophthalmol Vis Syst. 2015;2:00046.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huang J, Wen D, Wang Q, et al. Efficacy comparison of 16 interventions for myopia control in children. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:697–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hess R, Mansouri B, Thompson B. A binocular approach to treating amblyopia: antisuppression therapy. Opt Vis Sci. 2010;87:697–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Webber AL, Wood JM, Thompson B. Fine motor skills of children with amblyopia improve following binocular treatment. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57:4713–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Manh VM, Holmes JM, Lazar EL, et al. A randomized trial of a binocular iPad game versus part-time patching in children ages 13 to 16 years with amblyopia. Ophthalmology. 2018;186:104–15.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Holmes JM, Manh VM, Lazar EL, et al. Effect of a binocular iPad game vs part-time patching in children aged 5 to 12 years with amblyopia. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134:1391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chatzis N, Hafezi F. Progression of keratoconus and efficacy of pediatric corneal collagen cross-linking in children and adolescents. J Refract Surg. 2012;28:753–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mazzotta C, Traversi C, Baiocchi S, et al. Corneal collagen cross-linking with riboflavin and ultraviolet A light for pediatric keratoconus: ten-year results. Cornea. 2018;37(5):560–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Buzzonetti L, Petrocelli G. Transepithelial corneal cross-linking in pediatric patients: early results. J Refract Surg. 2012;28:763–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Baenninger PB, Bachmann LM, Wienecke L, et al. Pediatric corneal cross-linking: a comparison of visual and topographic outcomes between conventional and accelerated treatment. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;183:11–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Magli A, Chiariello Vecchio E, Carelli R, et al. Pediatric keratoconus and iontophoretic corneal crosslinking: refractive and topographic evidence in patients underwent general and topical anesthesia, 18 months of follow up. Int Ophthalmol. 2016;36:585–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dick HB, Schelenz D, Schultz T. Femtosecond laser-assisted pediatric cataract surgery: Bochum formula. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(4):821–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kara Tison
    • 1
  • Aparna Ramasubramanian
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ophthalmology and Visual SciencesUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations