Next Article in Journal
Teachers’ Knowledge and Attitudes toward Sustainable Inclusive Education for Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
Next Article in Special Issue
Diagnosis and Management of Keratoconus—A Narrative Review of Clinicians’ Perspectives
Previous Article in Journal
Brain-Directed Care: Why Neuroscience Principles Direct PICU Management beyond the ABCs
Previous Article in Special Issue
Prevalence of Computer Vision Syndrome among School-Age Children during the COVID-19 Pandemic, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Survey
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Pediatric Ocular Diseases

1
Creighton University School of Medicine Phoenix Regional Campus, Phoenix, AZ 85012, USA
2
Gavin Herbert Eye Institute, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Children 2022, 9(12), 1939; https://doi.org/10.3390/children9121939
Submission received: 9 November 2022 / Revised: 28 November 2022 / Accepted: 6 December 2022 / Published: 10 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Pediatric Eye Disease: Screening, Causes and Treatment)

Abstract

:
Vision is an important aspect of a child’s quality of life and intellectual, social, and emotional development. Disruptions to vision during infancy and early childhood can cause lifelong vision impairment or blindness. However, early identification and treatment of eye disease can prevent loss of sight and its consequent long-term effects. Therefore, screening guidelines exist to guide physicians in detecting the most common threats to sight in the different stages of infancy and childhood. This review describes common causes of pediatric vision impairment, the recommended screening guidelines for diagnosing them, and current treatment modalities.

1. Introduction

Pediatric blindness is a life-altering condition that affects children worldwide. To address the then-estimated prevalence of 1.4 million irreversibly blind children, the World Health Organization considered control of blindness in children to be a high priority in its VISION 2020—The Right to Sight campaign that launched in 1999 [1]. More recent prevalence estimates as of 2020 range from 1.02–1.44 million depending on methodology, with 22.16 million estimated to have moderate-severe vision impairment and 46.60 million having mild vision impairment [2]. Preservation of vision is important as it plays a critical role during infancy and childhood, formative periods in which children learn to synthesize sensory information and engage with the world. Deficiencies in sight may impair early development and learning, resulting in lifelong intellectual, emotional, and social sequelae [3,4]. Many such issues can be avoided if deficits in vision can be identified and corrected early, but intervention becomes progressively difficult if disturbances to vision are allowed to persist.
To prevent loss of vision during infancy and childhood, early identification and treatment of ocular pathology are critical. Regular, systematic vision screening may assist in making early diagnoses of common causes of visual disturbances, many of which result in amblyopia and, ultimately, vision impairment. Amblyopia satisfies the World Health Organization guidelines for screening as it is a disease of significance that has an identifiable early phase, readily available diagnostic measures, and effective treatments [5]. This review seeks to assist pediatricians and other physicians with pediatric patient populations by outlining the most up-to-date screening guidelines and treatment options for common pediatric ocular pathology, especially those that frequently warrant management by pediatric ophthalmologists.

2. Vision Development and Early Screening

Pediatric vision screening is guided by the functional milestones of the visual system as it develops. At birth, a child’s visual system has not yet completed development and will have a visual acuity of approximately 20/400 [6]. Although it will be able to detect light and have an appropriate pupillary reflex [7], vision past its optimal viewing distance of 8–12 inches (20.3–30.4 cm) will be limited to blurred, gross shapes [8]. In the newborn nursery, pediatricians examine the eyes to elicit the red reflex and identify gross congenital defects such as cataracts, glaucoma, or infection. Detection of an abnormality or history of prematurity are indications for examination by an ophthalmologist [9]. Pediatricians continue to screen for similar abnormalities of the eyes during well-child physical exams [10,11].
By 2–4 months of age, infants have the ability to coordinate both eyes together and fixate on targets such as faces and moving objects. Intermittent strabismus may be noted until as late as 3–4 months but can be considered benign through this period [12]. Constant, large-angle strabismus (e.g., infantile esotropia or pathologic exotropia) may develop at this age; however, it is not benign. By 6 months, accommodation has completed development and stereopsis begins to progress [13].
Between the ages of 1 and 2 years, sight improves rapidly as sensory structures such as the optic nerves and visual cortex continue to myelinate and grow [14]. By ages 3–5, a child’s visual acuity reaches its adult level of 20/20, coinciding with the maturation of the fovea, which usually occurs near 4 years of age. At this point, robust visual acuity screening may be performed. Current guidelines by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO), American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS), and United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) uniformly recommend annual visual acuity screening from ages 3–5 years to identify issues such as amblyopia or its risk factors, including strabismus, anisometropia, and refractive errors (Table 1) [10,11,15,16]. In patients who are younger, preverbal, or have developmental delays, these screens are often conducted using instruments that can perform autorefraction or photoscreening, which do not require focused cooperation and feedback. In children who have developed the capacity to readily participate, subjective visual testing with HOTV or Lea symbols is preferred [10,11]. A cover test is also included in examinations to assess for refixation that would suggest strabismus. At 6 years and older, screening continues every other year. Visual acuity may be assessed using Snellen or Sloan letters, reflecting increasing literacy in older children.
The visual system reaches full maturity near the age of 10, at which point early-onset reversible vision impairment may no longer be able to be corrected. Children with amblyopia respond best to treatment before the age of 7 years, while children up to 13 years old typically respond less to treatment [17]. The age-dependent reversibility of some visual deficits in children highlights the importance of early screening and treatment.

3. Retinoblastoma

Retinoblastoma is a malignancy of the retina. It is the most common primary intraocular cancer in the pediatric population and affects approximately one in every 14,000–16,600 children, with roughly 95% of cases occurring before the age of 5 years [18,19,20]. Retinoblastoma classically arises due to mutations in both alleles of the retinoblastoma susceptibility gene (RB1), resulting in a lack of regulation at the G1-S checkpoint of the cell cycle and subsequent unchecked cellular proliferation. Patients who inherit a mutated gene and acquire the second mutation sporadically are deemed to have “heritable” or “germline” retinoblastoma (25–30% of cases), which typically presents bilaterally; those with two spontaneous mutations are considered to have “nonheritable” retinoblastoma (70–75% of cases), which usually presents unilaterally [21,22]. Untreated retinoblastoma fills and destroys the globe and can metastasize if it gains access to ocular vasculature such as the choroid plexus [22]. In high-income countries, 99% of cases are detected before metastasis, which correlates with survival rates as high as 97% or greater [23,24,25,26]. In contrast, 25% of cases are diagnosed after the onset of metastasis in low-income countries. Delayed diagnosis and treatment in these settings correlate with a survival rate of approximately 30%, demonstrating the importance of early screening and intervention [27,28].
Screening for retinoblastoma is a core component of routine vision screening beginning at birth, primarily with evaluation for the red reflex, as 50–60% of retinoblastoma cases present with leukocoria [29]. Other common presenting symptoms include strabismus (20%) and inflammation (5%). Leukocoria and strabismus, therefore, warrant urgent consultation by an ophthalmologist [9]. Further screening measures are recommended for children with a family history of retinoblastoma. For this high-risk population, recommendations made by the American Association of Ophthalmic Oncologists and Pathologists and endorsed by the AAPOS and AAP include serial dilated fundus examinations with or without anesthesia from birth until 7 years of age, with intervals dictated by risk [30]. The consensus panel also recommended genetic counseling and testing for mutation of RB1 in all patients with personal or family history of retinoblastoma. Carriers are suggested to continue undergoing fundus examination indefinitely every 1–2 years after the age of 7 years, while those without mutation may discontinue after the age of 7 years provided they have remained asymptomatic. Diagnosis requires extended ophthalmoscopy under anesthesia, which classically reveals a soft, nodular, white or off-white mass(es) [31,32], augmented with A and B-scan ultrasound and MRI to characterize the mass and its extent of spread [22,33].
A wide variety of treatment modalities and strategies exists for retinoblastoma, though the guiding principle is consistent: preserve life, globe, and vision. Management is guided by the characteristics and classification of the tumor(s) [34,35,36], the exact details of which are beyond the scope of this more cursory review. Cryotherapy and laser photocoagulation are first-line local treatment options for low-risk tumors [22,37]. For larger tumors or those involving the macula, systemic chemotherapy may be used to first shrink the tumor to a size more amenable to focal therapy, a strategy known as “chemoreduction” [38,39,40]. For tumors of moderate to high risk, other chemotherapeutic options can be considered, including intra-arterial chemotherapy (IAC) and intravitreal chemotherapy. In IAC, chemotherapy is delivered through a cannula advanced to the ophthalmic artery with the goal of increasing drug concentration at the tumor site while reducing systemic exposure [41,42]. Treatment with IAC preserves the globe in 86% of early retinoblastoma cases, but the ocular salvage rate falls to 57% in advanced disease [43]. Intravitreal chemotherapy, in which chemotherapy is injected into the vitreous, is most commonly used to treat vitreous seeds refractory to IAC or systemic chemotherapy. It achieves seed control in 95% of cases, with an ocular salvage rate of 90.4% [44]. The risk of tumor dissemination due to intravitreal penetration has been found to be negligible, allowing intravitreal chemotherapy to be more frequently used in conjunction with IAC [45]. Compared to IAC alone, the combination results in a shorter time to regression, fewer recurrences, and an increased globe salvage rate [46,47]. In cases of retinoblastoma that are refractory to these globe-conserving measures and have poor visual potential, and in cases of large, advanced tumors that also have impaired vision potential, enucleation is indicated [22,37]. Systemic chemotherapy is sometimes used as an adjuvant treatment for cases that have extended past the globe and pose a metastatic threat [48]. Finally, systemic chemotherapy is also used for metastatic disease, sometimes as one component of intense multimodal therapy [49,50].

4. Retinopathy of Prematurity

Retinopathy of prematurity is a common disorder of ocular vascular development in premature infants. Previously the top cause of blindness in children in the United States, its prevalence in industrialized countries has fallen due to the widespread implementation of screening and treatment. However, it remains a leading cause of blindness worldwide [51,52]. Although prematurity is often defined as birth occurring prior to a gestational age of 37 weeks, retinopathy of prematurity is not typically observed in children born at or after 32 weeks of gestational age in developed countries [53,54]. Estimates of the incidence of retinopathy of prematurity vary dramatically based on study location, methodology, and definition of prematurity, ranging from 20% (2017 study in the United States) to 73% (2009 study in Sweden) [55,56,57]. Pathogenesis begins with an initial phase of premature cessation of ocular vascular development due to the relatively hyperoxic environment compared to the uterus. The resulting insufficient perfusion and increasing metabolic activity of the retina trigger the second stage in which excess vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and erythropoietin (EPO) are secreted by the avascular retina. This triggers disorganized neovascularization that can proliferate into the vitreous, causing edema and hemorrhage due to leakage, fibrovascular tissue formation, and exertion of traction on the retina, which facilitates retinal detachment [55,58]. Therefore, the most prominent risk factors are the degree of prematurity or low birth weight, which exacerbate the immaturity of ocular vasculature, and supplemental oxygen, which is often required in premature neonates.
In the United States, screening for retinopathy of prematurity via binocular dilated indirect ophthalmoscopy is recommended for all infants born at or before 30 weeks gestational age or birth weight of 1500 g or less, as well as infants born after 30 weeks gestational age or birth weight of 1500–2000 g with additional risk factors as judged by a neonatologist [59]. Examination initially occurs at 31 weeks postmenstrual age (sum of gestational age at birth and chronologic age) for infants born at 22–26 weeks gestational age or at 4 weeks chronologic age for infants born at 27 weeks or later as determined by analysis of natural history data from the Multicenter Trial of Cryotherapy for Retinopathy of Prematurity and Light Reduction in ROP studies [60,61,62,63]. Follow-up examinations are indicated as frequently as less than one week out to as long as three weeks out based on the progression of vascularization and retinopathy within the retinopathy of prematurity zones as described in The International Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity Revisited [59,64]. Repeat examinations are continued until vascularization is complete, the patient reaches 45 weeks postmenstrual age without the development of retinopathy, existing retinopathy regresses, or treatment is required [61,65,66].
Treatment is indicated when the criteria for Type 1 retinopathy of prematurity are met [67]. First-line treatments include anti-VEGF agents [68,69,70] and diode or argon laser photocoagulation [71,72]. Both anti-VEGF and laser therapies have similar efficacy in preventing progression and recurrence, but anti-VEGF treatment may be associated with a lower risk of structural adverse effects and high myopia compared to laser treatment [73,74,75]. Despite these advantages, anti-VEGF therapy, especially ranibizumab, requires closer monitoring due to the risk of reactivation or late recurrence, which usually requires subsequent laser treatment [76,77]. Cryotherapy, historically the only available treatment until the 1990s, is rarely used in settings where anti-VEGF or laser options are available due to their superiority [78,79].

5. Strabismus

Strabismus is a misalignment of the eyes, which compromises the ability to focus both eyes on the same target. This misalignment is caused by an imbalance between the extraocular rectus muscles. Strabismus is among the most common pediatric ocular pathologies, occurring in roughly 2–4% of children [80,81]. It may be present at birth, especially in premature or low birth weight deliveries [82,83,84], or be acquired during childhood, often in the setting of comorbid diseases such as vision deprivation, cataracts, or retinoblastoma [85,86]. Prolonged strabismus and the consequent visual discordance may disrupt the brain’s visual system as it develops, making it a leading cause of amblyopia. It may also be detrimental to the progression of binocular vision [87].
Due to its high incidence and debilitating sequelae if left untreated, pediatricians screen for strabismus during well-child checks. The cover test, in which the examiner covers the patient’s eyes sequentially and searches for refixation, is the most commonly performed examination technique. An asymmetric red reflex or Hirschberg’s corneal light reflex not symmetrically centered on the pupils are other findings that suggest the presence of strabismus [10,15,88]. More dramatic cases of strabismus, such as overt disconjugate gaze, may first be noted by parents or guardians.
Treatment of strabismus depends on multiple factors, including the type of strabismus (esodeviation vs. exodeviation), age of onset, and degree of misalignment (measured in prism diopters). Conservative, nonsurgical therapy may be considered in some cases; options include corrective eyeglasses, orthoptic exercises, prismatic correction, and miotic pharmacotherapy [89,90,91]. Conservative measures alone are sometimes indicated in children presenting with accommodative strabismus past the age of 1 year of age [92]. However, if large angle, constant non-accommodative strabismus is present prior to 6 months of age, surgery is indicated and should be performed as early as possible in order to maximize the development of stereopsis. Since stereopsis develops from birth to 2 years of age, strabismus during this time period disrupts the development of stereopsis. If the age of onset of strabismus is after 2 years of age, strabismus surgery has greater potential to restore stereopsis as the brain had previously developed stereopsis. Strabismus surgery is also indicated if conservative modalities fail or if strabismus is obvious and causes psychosocial issues [93]. Surgery is most often performed in cases of infantile strabismus (presenting within the first 6 months of life), nonaccommodative and partially accommodative esotropia, and cases with wide angles of deviation (esotropias greater than 15 prism diopters and exotropias greater than 20 diopters). Multiple surgical strategies exist to achieve ocular realignment by weakening, strengthening, or transposing extraocular muscles, and conservative treatment options are sometimes used to augment surgical correction. The goal of surgery is to reduce deviation to less than 10 prism diopters; achieving deviation of less than 4 prism diopters allows for the development of stereopsis [94,95].
It is imperative to differentiate between strabismus and similar appearing yet benign entities such as the aforementioned infantile physiological intermittent strabismus, which resolves no later than 3–4 months of age, and another phenomenon known as pseudostrabismus. Pseudostrabismus is the illusion of misaligned eyes due to particular facial features, most commonly a wide nasal bridge and prominent epicanthal folds, which can give the erroneous appearance of esotropia [96]. No management beyond reassurance and education of the family is required after ruling out true strabismus. Pseudostrabismus typically resolves without treatment as the child’s face matures with age, and while some reports have detailed a higher incidence of true strabismus in patients with pseudostrabismus, more recent studies have not been supportive of this risk [97,98].

6. Amblyopia

Amblyopia refers to impairment of vision processing secondary to disruptions to the development of the visual system due to anisometropia or high refractive error, strabismus, or obstruction of the visual axis [87,99]. Due to the commonplace nature of many of its risk factors, amblyopia is a very common cause of childhood vision impairment, with global prevalence estimated near 1–4% of all children [80,100,101]. Although amblyopia may present bilaterally, it is more commonly unilateral, resulting in the affected eye becoming “lazy” as the child relies more heavily on the unaffected eye. Consequently, the visual pathways associated with the affected eye do not develop adequately, leading to central visual deficits if not corrected before the visual system reaches maturity [102].
Amblyopia or its risk factors are evaluated by pediatricians during routine well-child checks. After first addressing underlying causes such as refractive errors and strabismus, treatment centers around penalization of the better eye to encourage the use of the weaker eye. The treatment modalities supported by the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group studies continue to represent the gold standard. In addition to refractive correction, both physical patching of the strong eye and pharmacological penalization via atropine were found to be effective treatments [103,104,105]. Recent reviews support their continued use and demonstrate greater efficacy over alternative treatments such as optical penalization (Plano lens) [106,107,108].

7. Cataracts

Although cataracts are usually associated with aging and older patient populations, both congenital and acquired cataracts may be observed in pediatric patients. Infantile cataracts occur in approximately 3–14 of every 10,000 live births in developed countries and are responsible for 5–20% of pediatric blindness worldwide [109,110,111,112]. There are many etiologies of pediatric cataracts, including but not limited to infection such as intrauterine rubella or toxoplasmosis, trauma, metabolic disorders such as classic galactosemia, and inherited genetic tendency [113]. Cataracts are often detected by observation of the parents or guardians or by regular vision screening, revealing reduced visual acuity, red reflex asymmetry, or leukocoria [114,115].
As cataracts can completely obscure vision by opacifying the lens, removal of symptomatic cataracts is recommended to restore vision in the affected eye(s) and prevent amblyopia in younger patients. Patients with significant congenital cataracts should pursue surgery as soon as possible, ideally within the first 6 weeks of life [116,117]. Patients younger than 6 months will typically receive aphakic contact lenses to replace their natural lens rather than an intraocular lens, as is standard for older children and adults. The use of aphakic contact lenses has been proven to reduce complications and allows for more convenient modification of refractive power as the eye grows [118]. Secondary intraocular lens implantation is an elective procedure that may be performed later in childhood, adolescence, or adulthood per patient preference. Although the procedure has typically been reserved for those 1 year of age or older, recent research has suggested implantation can be done successfully as early as 7 months [117,119,120]. Following surgery, occlusion of the fellow eye is recommended to reduce the risk of amblyopia [121].

8. Glaucoma

Like cataracts, glaucoma is a condition of the eye primarily associated with advanced age. However, it too can affect pediatric patients, causing damage to the optic nerve that initially results in deficits of peripheral vision, then central vision and ultimately complete blindness if untreated [122]. Primary congenital glaucoma is the most common primary pediatric glaucoma. It is rare in industrialized countries, observed in one in every 10,000–30,000 live births [123,124], but can be as common as one in every 1250–2500 births in other populations and locations such as the Slovakian Roma and Saudi Arabia [125,126]. Pathogenesis involves abnormal development of the aqueous outflow track, particularly the trabecular meshwork or Schlemm canal.
Primary congenital glaucoma may present with some or all of the components of the classic triad of photophobia, epiphora, and blepharospasm due to corneal opacity or could simply present with buphthalmos (enlarged globe) [127]. Further examination may demonstrate corneal edema and cloudiness, corneal enlargement, and breaks in Descemet’s membrane, known as Haab striae. Diagnosis is made clinically with characteristic symptoms, physical exam findings, and usually, but not necessarily, measurement of intraocular pressure [128,129]. Although symptoms and manifestations suggestive of primary congenital glaucoma may be observed during routine eye exams, specific screening by measuring intraocular pressure is not performed outside of high-risk cases [11,130]. However, due to some genes, such as CYP1B1, being associated with familial manifestations of primary congenital glaucoma, genetic screening in high-risk populations may play a role in the future [131].
Surgery is the definitive treatment in primary congenital glaucoma. Goniotomy and trabeculotomy are first-line procedures that both have similar success rates of 80–90%, although trabeculotomy may be preferred in cases in which corneal hazing obscures the view of the angle [132,133]. In some cases, further surgery, such as tube shunting, is required. Pharmacotherapy is often used to supplement surgery but rarely replaces it; timolol is the first-line agent in pediatric glaucoma, but other options include carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, alpha-2 agonists (contraindicated in patients younger than 2 years of age), miotics, and prostaglandin analogs [122,134,135].
Although primary congenital glaucoma is the most common type of primary glaucoma in pediatric patients, primary glaucoma can also be observed later in childhood. Juvenile open-angle glaucoma can occur in children past the age of 3 years and resembles adult open-angle glaucoma but progresses more aggressively and requires surgery more frequently than its adult counterpart. Pediatric glaucoma also presents secondary to many other etiologies such as Sturge-Weber syndrome, Axenfeld-Rieger syndrome, Peters anomaly, aniridia, corticosteroids, and cataract surgery [136,137,138,139,140,141].

9. Conjunctivitis

Conjunctivitis, or “pinkeye”, is a common cause of eye redness resulting from inflammation of the bulbar and tarsal conjunctiva. It occurs most frequently in children below the age of 7 years and is most commonly caused by allergic reactions, viral or bacterial infections, and noninfectious irritants like smoke or fumes [142]. Diagnosis is made clinically with little role for culture or testing; concomitant clinical features can aid in the determination of the etiology, although the specificity of such features is often low [143]. Allergic conjunctivitis typically presents bilaterally with its characteristic pruritis; other features can include watery discharge and atopic symptoms such as congestion, sneezing, or wheezing. Viral conjunctivitis, most commonly caused by adenovirus [144], also usually involves watery discharge but can present unilaterally before the fellow eye is involved. Other viral prodromal features may be present. While bacterial conjunctivitis can also present unilaterally or bilaterally, it is best distinguished by the rapid onset of symptoms, including purulent drainage that returns minutes after wiping and can lead to the infected eye(s) being “stuck shut” upon waking. However, this adhesion is nonspecific and may also be observed in viral conjunctivitis [145]. The most common causative organisms are Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Streptococcus epidermidis, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Haemophilus influenzae historically also frequently caused bacterial conjunctivitis but has become less common due to widespread vaccination [146].
Treatment of conjunctivitis is directed toward the underlying etiology. Bacterial conjunctivitis can be self-limiting but can also be treated with antibiotic drops or ointments for 5–7 days to reduce the disease duration. Trimethoprim/polymyxin B, fluoroquinolones, and macrolides are effective treatments; fluoroquinolones are preferred in contact lens wearers for coverage of pseudomonas. Both viral and allergic conjunctivitis may be treated symptomatically with cold compresses and artificial tears. Allergic conjunctivitis may also be treated with topical antihistamines, mast cell inhibitors, or vasoconstrictors, though allergen avoidance is key in preventing symptoms [145,147]. The use of corticosteroids should be reserved for consulting ophthalmologists in specific cases of allergy and viral infection due to the risk of corneal damage, cataract, and glaucoma [148,149].
Infectious conjunctivitis, especially viral conjunctivitis, is highly contagious, and care must be taken to avoid spread. Bacteria and viruses are readily transmitted via direct contact or fomites, with up to 46% of patients with viral conjunctivitis having positive cultures grown from swabs of the hands [150]. Therefore, strict hand hygiene, such as hand washing, avoidance of touching one’s eyes, and abstinence from sharing personal items, are critical to prevention. In the United States, children are usually prohibited from returning to school or childcare services until 24 h after initiating treatment of conjunctivitis or resolution of discharge, although this is less effective for prevention of viral conjunctivitis given its estimated contagious period of 10–14 days [145,147,151].
In neonates, vertical transmission of infectious agents can cause ophthalmia neonatorum (neonatal conjunctivitis), most often due to infection by Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, or herpes simplex virus (HSV). Neisseria gonorrhoeae and HSV infection can have serious complications, including ulceration and scarring of the cornea. Therefore, perinatal prophylaxis with 0.5% erythromycin ointment is recommended in the United States to prevent gonococcal conjunctivitis [152,153]. However, topical erythromycin is not an effective option for prophylaxis or treatment of chlamydial conjunctivitis. Treatment instead requires oral azithromycin to also treat potential concomitant infections of other organ systems, which are observed in over half of chlamydial conjunctivitis cases [146,152]. Treatment of HSV conjunctivitis involves oral acyclovir and topical 1% trifluridine, 0.1% idoxuridine, or 0.15% ganciclovir drops [154].

10. Lacrimal Duct Obstruction

Congenital blockage of the lacrimal duct is a common and benign problem observed in as many as 6% of neonates [155,156]. Tears are produced in the lacrimal gland found superolateral to the eye and coat the surface of the eye to maintain moisture, remove debris and microbes, and maintain clarity of the cornea. They then exit the surface of the eye through an opening of the medial eyelid known as the punctum and flow into the lacrimal canaliculi. From the canaliculi, they accumulate in the lacrimal sac and then drain into the lacrimal duct and ultimately into the nose. The most common type of lacrimal duct obstruction is dacryostenosis, which is usually caused by the persistence of a membrane at the distal end of the lacrimal duct that failed to regress during canalization [157]. If a proximal obstruction is also present, usually in the common canaliculus or junction between the common canaliculus and lacrimal sac, the blockage is considered a dacryocystocele [158].
Obstruction of the lacrimal duct presents with one or both eye(s) pooling and often overflowing with tears, resulting in them running down the cheek due to failure of tear drainage. Crusting and “mattering” of the eyelids and eyelashes are also common symptoms. In the case of dacryocystocele, a bluish mass superficial to the lacrimal sac may be present. Symptoms may be detected by caregivers or during routine eye examinations [11,15]. Diagnosis is clinical, though the dye disappearance test can be used in unclear cases, in which fluorescein is applied into the lower eyelid and monitored for disappearance within 5 min to indicate adequate tear drainage [159].
Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction is typically self-limited, with 78–96% of cases resolving spontaneously before the age of 12 months [160,161,162]. Cases that have not been resolved past 12 months are unlikely to do so spontaneously. Treatment begins with conservative measures such as lacrimal sac massages, which entail the application of moderate, downward pressure to the lacrimal sac with the goal of rupturing the imperforate membrane. Massages are performed multiple times daily until the resolution of symptoms [163]. Obstruction refractory to lacrimal sac massage requires surgical intervention, usually lacrimal duct probing, in which a small probe or cannula is advanced through the punctum and mechanically ruptures any obstructing membranes until reaching the site of tear drainage into the nose. Although congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction often resolves spontaneously until 12 months, surgical probing can be performed as early as 6–10 months to eliminate symptoms earlier, avoid the need for general anesthesia, and potentially cause less lacrimal duct scarring [164,165].
Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction can be complicated by infection due to the proliferation of bacteria within the accumulated tears, which can present with purulent discharge. A 3–5 day course of topical antibiotics, typically fluoroquinolones, can be used to treat simple bacterial overgrowth [166]. However, purulent discharge in the presence of other symptoms indicative of infection, such as fever or erythema and tenderness in the location of the lacrimal sac, indicates a more serious complication known as dacryocystitis [167]. Due to the risk of orbital cellulitis, meningitis, and brain abscess, dacryocystitis must be treated aggressively with 7–10 days of systemic antibiotics with empiric coverage for Streptococcus and Staphylococcus species (typically vancomycin or clindamycin depending on disease severity) until cultures of blood and nasolacrimal duct fluid can direct targeted therapy [164,168].

11. Disorders of the Eyelids and Skin

Congenital ptosis is drooping of the eyelid that presents at birth or within 1 year in roughly one in 842 live births [169]. It is usually unilateral and is most frequently due to developmental errors causing infiltration or even replacement of the levator palpebrae superioris muscle with fibrous and adipose tissue [170]. Congenital ptosis can result in amblyopia if the eyelid obscures the pupil or exerts enough pressure on the cornea to alter its morphology and induce astigmatism [171,172]. Treatment is surgical correction and is indicated in cases at risk for amblyopia at any age [170,173]. In cases where amblyopia is not a pressing concern, surgery should be delayed until at least age 3–4 years for improved surgical success [174].
Capillary (strawberry) hemangiomas are common, benign vascular tumors that occur in up to 5% of live births [175]. Although they may present anywhere on the skin, mucosa, or internal organs, they most commonly appear on the head and neck and can implicate the eyelid and extend into the orbit [176]. Due to their local compressive effects, they can cause mechanical ptosis, strabismus, and astigmatism, ultimately resulting in amblyopia. Capillary hemangiomas follow a classical disease course, appearing spontaneously at birth or within the following weeks, undergoing a phase of rapid proliferation lasting 5–6 months, proliferating slowly or plateauing until beginning involution around 1 year of age, then resolving completely over several years [177,178]. Due to their predictable course, capillary hemangiomas are initially managed with observation only. However, intervention is indicated when there is a risk for amblyopia, optic nerve compression, and other threats to vision [179]. When indicated, treatment is best initiated as soon as possible, preferably before 4 weeks of age, to stymie the rapid proliferation phase. The first-line treatment is oral propranolol, although systemic corticosteroids can be used as a second-line agent for cases in which propranolol is contraindicated [180,181]. Surgical therapies can also be considered, such as laser photocoagulation for superficial lesions and surgical excision for tumors refractory to first-line therapies [182,183].
Dermoid cysts are benign tumors composed of keratinized epithelial and adnexal components that account for 46% of all childhood orbital neoplasms [184]. They typically present as a smooth, superficial mass near the lateral brow or less frequently medially. Although they are often asymptomatic and sometimes regress spontaneously, they can be slowly progressive and are usually surgically excised before they rupture and cause inflammation [185,186].

12. Discussion

Given the importance of vision in both the quality of life and the development of pediatric patients, early screening, diagnosis, and treatment of ocular disease are crucial aspects of their care. Multiple American professional societies, including the AAO, AAP, AAPOS, and USPSTF, support vision screening in children to identify threats to vision and intervene early in their course, thus preventing long-term vision impairment. Of note, no randomized controlled trials have been performed to demonstrate that vision screening programs reduce the incidence of amblyopia in older children or adults, representing an area for future research [187].
Pediatricians performing well-child checks are often the first to detect ocular pathology in children. While less serious problems like conjunctivitis may be managed well by primary care physicians, the AAP recommends referring to a pediatric ophthalmologist for more serious cases such as those with suspected or diagnosed retinoblastoma or other ocular or orbital tumors, cataracts, glaucoma, congenital ocular defects or infections, systemic syndromes or genetic disorders with potential ocular manifestations, abuse with an eye injury, or any suspected eye disease in patients 7 years of age or younger who are nonverbal or cannot read [9]. Parents and guardians also play a key role as they often observe worrying symptoms between routine screenings. They may be educated to bring patients for evaluation if they display symptoms best described in plain language, such as whitening of the pupil (leukocoria), eyes that look crooked or crossed (strabismus), eyes that do not move together (disconjugate gaze), frequent squinting, drooping eyelid (ptosis), seeing double (diplopia), excessive tearing (epiphora), pupils of different sizes (anisocoria), light sensitivity (photophobia), and pain, redness, swelling, crusting, or discharge of the eyes or eyelids for over 24 h.
Screening guidelines, diagnostic criteria, and treatment options for pediatric ocular diseases constantly evolve as new research and innovations improve the standard of care. Therefore, it is important for clinicians working with pediatric populations to maintain an up-to-date understanding of guidelines and recommendations to inform their decision-making as they work to protect the vision of children.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.L. and D.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.L.; writing—review and editing, D.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gilbert, C.; Foster, A. Childhood blindness in the context of VISION 2020—The right to sight. Bull. World Health Organ. 2001, 79, 227–232. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. Burton, M.J.; Ramke, J.; Marques, A.P.; Bourne, R.R.A.; Congdon, N.; Jones, I.; Ah Tong, B.A.M.; Arunga, S.; Bachani, D.; Bascaran, C.; et al. The Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health: Vision beyond 2020. Lancet Glob. Health 2021, 9, e489–e551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Tadic, V.; Pring, L.; Dale, N. Are language and social communication intact in children with congenital visual impairment at school age? J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2010, 51, 696–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Sonksen, P.M.; Dale, N. Visual impairment in infancy: Impact on neurodevelopmental and neurobiological processes. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2002, 44, 782–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wilson, J.M.G.; Jungner, G. Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1968; p. 34. [Google Scholar]
  6. Mills, M.D. The eye in childhood. Am. Fam. Physician 1999, 60, 907–916, 918. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ikeda, T.; Ishikawa, H.; Shimizu, K.; Asakawa, K.; Goseki, T. Pupillary Size and Light Reflex in Premature Infants. Neuroophthalmology 2015, 39, 175–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Augustyn, M.; Parker, S.; Zuckerman, B.S. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics: A Handbook for Primary Care; Lippincott Williams and Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  9. Surgical Advisory Panel, A.A.o.P.; Klein, M.D. Referral to pediatric surgical specialists. Pediatrics 2014, 133, 350–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Donahue, S.P.; Nixon, C.N.; Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine; American Association of Certified Orthoptists; American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus; American Academy of Ophthalmology. Visual System Assessment in Infants, Children, and Young Adults by Pediatricians. Pediatrics 2016, 137, 28–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Wallace, D.K.; Morse, C.L.; Melia, M.; Sprunger, D.T.; Repka, M.X.; Lee, K.A.; Christiansen, S.P.; American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern Pediatric Ophthalmology/Strabismus Panel. Pediatric Eye Evaluations Preferred Practice Pattern(R): I. Vision Screening in the Primary Care and Community Setting; II. Comprehensive Ophthalmic Examination. Ophthalmology 2018, 125, P184–P227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Archer, S.M.; Sondhi, N.; Helveston, E.M. Strabismus in infancy. Ophthalmology 1989, 96, 133–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Riggs, L.A. Visual Acuity. In Vision and Visual Perception; Graham, C.H., Ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1965; pp. 321–349. [Google Scholar]
  14. Boothe, R.G.; Dobson, V.; Teller, D.Y. Postnatal development of vision in human and nonhuman primates. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 1985, 8, 495–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Donahue, S.P.; Baker, C.N.; Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine; Section on Ophthalmology; American Association of Certified Orthoptists; American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus; American Academy of Ophthalmology. Procedures for the Evaluation of the Visual System by Pediatricians. Pediatrics 2016, 137, e20153597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Force, U.S.P.S.T.; Grossman, D.C.; Curry, S.J.; Owens, D.K.; Barry, M.J.; Davidson, K.W.; Doubeni, C.A.; Epling, J.W., Jr.; Kemper, A.R.; Krist, A.H.; et al. Vision Screening in Children Aged 6 Months to 5 Years: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA 2017, 318, 836–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Holmes, J.M.; Lazar, E.L.; Melia, B.M.; Astle, W.F.; Dagi, L.R.; Donahue, S.P.; Frazier, M.G.; Hertle, R.W.; Repka, M.X.; Quinn, G.E.; et al. Effect of age on response to amblyopia treatment in children. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2011, 129, 1451–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Darlow, B.A.; Gilbert, C. Retinopathy of prematurity—A world update. Semin Perinatol 2019, 43, 315–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Terry, T.L. Retrolental fibroplasia. J Pediatr 1946, 29, 770–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Blencowe, H.; Lawn, J.E.; Vazquez, T.; Fielder, A.; Gilbert, C. Preterm-associated visual impairment and estimates of retinopathy of prematurity at regional and global levels for 2010. Pediatr Res. 2013, 74 (Suppl. 1), 35–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Holmstrom, G.E.; Hellstrom, A.; Jakobsson, P.G.; Lundgren, P.; Tornqvist, K.; Wallin, A. Swedish national register for retinopathy of prematurity (SWEDROP) and the evaluation of screening in Sweden. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2012, 130, 1418–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hellstrom, A.; Smith, L.E.; Dammann, O. Retinopathy of prematurity. Lancet 2013, 382, 1445–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Ludwig, C.A.; Chen, T.A.; Hernandez-Boussard, T.; Moshfeghi, A.A.; Moshfeghi, D.M. The Epidemiology of Retinopathy of Prematurity in the United States. Ophthalmic. Surg. Lasers Imaging Retina 2017, 48, 553–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Austeng, D.; Kallen, K.B.; Ewald, U.W.; Jakobsson, P.G.; Holmstrom, G.E. Incidence of retinopathy of prematurity in infants born before 27 weeks’ gestation in Sweden. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2009, 127, 1315–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Hartnett, M.E. Pathophysiology and mechanisms of severe retinopathy of prematurity. Ophthalmology 2015, 122, 200–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Fierson, W.M.; American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Ophthalmology; American Academy of Ophthalmology; American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology And Strabismus; American Association of Certified Orthoptists. Screening Examination of Premature Infants for Retinopathy of Prematurity. Pediatrics 2018, 142, e20183061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Reynolds, J.D.; Dobson, V.; Quinn, G.E.; Fielder, A.R.; Palmer, E.A.; Saunders, R.A.; Hardy, R.J.; Phelps, D.L.; Baker, J.D.; Trese, M.T.; et al. Evidence-based screening criteria for retinopathy of prematurity: Natural history data from the CRYO-ROP and LIGHT-ROP studies. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2002, 120, 1470–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Reynolds, J.D.; Hardy, R.J.; Kennedy, K.A.; Spencer, R.; van Heuven, W.A.; Fielder, A.R. Lack of efficacy of light reduction in preventing retinopathy of prematurity. Light Reduction in Retinopathy of Prematurity (LIGHT-ROP) Cooperative Group. N. Engl. J. Med. 1998, 338, 1572–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Hutchinson, A.K.; Saunders, R.A.; O’Neil, J.W.; Lovering, A.; Wilson, M.E. Timing of initial screening examinations for retinopathy of prematurity. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1998, 116, 608–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Palmer, E.A.; Flynn, J.T.; Hardy, R.J.; Phelps, D.L.; Phillips, C.L.; Schaffer, D.B.; Tung, B. Incidence and early course of retinopathy of prematurity. The Cryotherapy for Retinopathy of Prematurity Cooperative Group. Ophthalmology 1991, 98, 1628–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. International Committee for the Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity. The International Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity revisited. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2005, 123, 991–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Repka, M.X.; Palmer, E.A.; Tung, B. Involution of retinopathy of prematurity. Cryotherapy for Retinopathy of Prematurity Cooperative Group. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2000, 118, 645–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Multicenter trial of cryotherapy for retinopathy of prematurity. Three-month outcome. Cryotherapy for Retinopathy of Prematurity Cooperative Group. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1990, 108, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Early Treatment for Retinopathy of Prematurity Cooperative Group. Revised indications for the treatment of retinopathy of prematurity: Results of the early treatment for retinopathy of prematurity randomized trial. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2003, 121, 1684–1694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Stahl, A.; Lepore, D.; Fielder, A.; Fleck, B.; Reynolds, J.D.; Chiang, M.F.; Li, J.; Liew, M.; Maier, R.; Zhu, Q.; et al. Ranibizumab versus laser therapy for the treatment of very low birthweight infants with retinopathy of prematurity (RAINBOW): An open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2019, 394, 1551–1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sankar, M.J.; Sankar, J.; Chandra, P. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs for treatment of retinopathy of prematurity. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018, 1, CD009734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mintz-Hittner, H.A.; Kennedy, K.A.; Chuang, A.Z.; Group, B.-R.C. Efficacy of intravitreal bevacizumab for stage 3+ retinopathy of prematurity. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011, 364, 603–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. McNamara, J.A.; Tasman, W.; Brown, G.C.; Federman, J.L. Laser photocoagulation for stage 3+ retinopathy of prematurity. Ophthalmology 1991, 98, 576–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Paysse, E.A.; Lindsey, J.L.; Coats, D.K.; Contant, C.F., Jr.; Steinkuller, P.G. Therapeutic outcomes of cryotherapy versus transpupillary diode laser photocoagulation for threshold retinopathy of prematurity. J. AAPOS 1999, 3, 234–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Geloneck, M.M.; Chuang, A.Z.; Clark, W.L.; Hunt, M.G.; Norman, A.A.; Packwood, E.A.; Tawansy, K.A.; Mintz-Hittner, H.A.; Group, B.-R.C. Refractive outcomes following bevacizumab monotherapy compared with conventional laser treatment: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014, 132, 1327–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Li, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Liao, Y.; Zeng, R.; Zeng, P.; Lan, Y. Comparison of efficacy between anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and laser treatment in Type-1 and threshold retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). BMC Ophthalmol. 2018, 18, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Stahl, A.; Sukgen, E.A.; Wu, W.C.; Lepore, D.; Nakanishi, H.; Mazela, J.; Moshfeghi, D.M.; Vitti, R.; Athanikar, A.; Chu, K.; et al. Effect of Intravitreal Aflibercept vs Laser Photocoagulation on Treatment Success of Retinopathy of Prematurity: The FIREFLEYE Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2022, 328, 348–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ng, E.Y.; Connolly, B.P.; McNamara, J.A.; Regillo, C.D.; Vander, J.F.; Tasman, W. A comparison of laser photocoagulation with cryotherapy for threshold retinopathy of prematurity at 10 years: Part 1. Visual function and structural outcome. Ophthalmology 2002, 109, 928–934; discussion 935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Connolly, B.P.; Ng, E.Y.; McNamara, J.A.; Regillo, C.D.; Vander, J.F.; Tasman, W. A comparison of laser photocoagulation with cryotherapy for threshold retinopathy of prematurity at 10 years: Part 2. Refractive outcome. Ophthalmology 2002, 109, 936–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gregersen, P.A.; Urbak, S.F.; Funding, M.; Overgaard, J.; Jensen, U.B.; Alsner, J. Danish retinoblastoma patients 1943–2013—genetic testing and clinical implications. Acta Oncol. 2016, 55, 412–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Seregard, S.; Lundell, G.; Svedberg, H.; Kivela, T. Incidence of retinoblastoma from 1958 to 1998 in Northern Europe: Advantages of birth cohort analysis. Ophthalmology 2004, 111, 1228–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Broaddus, E.; Topham, A.; Singh, A.D. Incidence of retinoblastoma in the USA: 1975-2004. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2009, 93, 21–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Abramson, D.H.; Schefler, A.C. Update on retinoblastoma. Retina 2004, 24, 828–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board. Retinoblastoma Treatment (PDQ®): Health Professional Version. In PDQ Cancer Information Summaries; National Cancer Institute (US): Bethesda, MD, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  50. Fernandes, A.G.; Pollock, B.D.; Rabito, F.A. Retinoblastoma in the United States: A 40-Year Incidence and Survival Analysis. J. Pediatr. Ophthalmol. Strabismus 2018, 55, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. MacCarthy, A.; Birch, J.M.; Draper, G.J.; Hungerford, J.L.; Kingston, J.E.; Kroll, M.E.; Stiller, C.A.; Vincent, T.J.; Murphy, M.F. Retinoblastoma: Treatment and survival in Great Britain 1963 to 2002. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2009, 93, 38–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Tamboli, D.; Topham, A.; Singh, N.; Singh, A.D. Retinoblastoma: A SEER Dataset Evaluation for Treatment Patterns, Survival, and Second Malignant Neoplasms. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2015, 160, 953–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Broaddus, E.; Topham, A.; Singh, A.D. Survival with retinoblastoma in the USA: 1975–2004. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2009, 93, 24–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Global Retinoblastoma Study, G.; Fabian, I.D.; Abdallah, E.; Abdullahi, S.U.; Abdulqader, R.A.; Adamou Boubacar, S.; Ademola-Popoola, D.S.; Adio, A.; Afshar, A.R.; Aggarwal, P.; et al. Global Retinoblastoma Presentation and Analysis by National Income Level. JAMA Oncol. 2020, 6, 685–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Dimaras, H.; Corson, T.W.; Cobrinik, D.; White, A.; Zhao, J.; Munier, F.L.; Abramson, D.H.; Shields, C.L.; Chantada, G.L.; Njuguna, F.; et al. Retinoblastoma. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2015, 1, 15021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Abramson, D.H.; Beaverson, K.; Sangani, P.; Vora, R.A.; Lee, T.C.; Hochberg, H.M.; Kirszrot, J.; Ranjithan, M. Screening for retinoblastoma: Presenting signs as prognosticators of patient and ocular survival. Pediatrics 2003, 112, 1248–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Skalet, A.H.; Gombos, D.S.; Gallie, B.L.; Kim, J.W.; Shields, C.L.; Marr, B.P.; Plon, S.E.; Chevez-Barrios, P. Screening Children at Risk for Retinoblastoma: Consensus Report from the American Association of Ophthalmic Oncologists and Pathologists. Ophthalmology 2018, 125, 453–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Abramson, D.H. Retinoblastoma 1990: Diagnosis, treatment, and implications. Pediatr. Ann. 1990, 19, 387–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pizzo, P.A.; Poplack, D.G. Principles and Practice of Pediatric Oncology, 6th ed.; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  60. Lin, P.; O’Brien, J.M. Frontiers in the management of retinoblastoma. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2009, 148, 192–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Abramson, D.H.; Shields, C.L.; Munier, F.L.; Chantada, G.L. Treatment of Retinoblastoma in 2015: Agreement and Disagreement. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015, 133, 1341–1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Linn Murphree, A. Intraocular retinoblastoma: The case for a new group classification. Ophthalmol. Clin. N. Am. 2005, 18, 41–53, viii. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Shields, C.L.; Mashayekhi, A.; Au, A.K.; Czyz, C.; Leahey, A.; Meadows, A.T.; Shields, J.A. The International Classification of Retinoblastoma predicts chemoreduction success. Ophthalmology 2006, 113, 2276–2280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Shields, C.L.; Shields, J.A. Recent developments in the management of retinoblastoma. J. Pediatr. Ophthalmol. Strabismus 1999, 36, 8–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Shields, C.L.; Mashayekhi, A.; Cater, J.; Shelil, A.; Meadows, A.T.; Shields, J.A. Chemoreduction for retinoblastoma. Analysis of tumor control and risks for recurrence in 457 tumors. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2004, 138, 329–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Shields, C.L.; Ramasubramanian, A.; Thangappan, A.; Hartzell, K.; Leahey, A.; Meadows, A.T.; Shields, J.A. Chemoreduction for group E retinoblastoma: Comparison of chemoreduction alone versus chemoreduction plus low-dose external radiotherapy in 76 eyes. Ophthalmology 2009, 116, 544–551.e541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Shields, C.L.; Mashayekhi, A.; Demirci, H.; Meadows, A.T.; Shields, J.A. Practical approach to management of retinoblastoma. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2004, 122, 729–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Shields, C.L.; Shields, J.A. Intra-arterial Chemotherapy for Retinoblastoma. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016, 134, 1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Abramson, D.H.; Dunkel, I.J.; Brodie, S.E.; Kim, J.W.; Gobin, Y.P. A phase I/II study of direct intraarterial (ophthalmic artery) chemotherapy with melphalan for intraocular retinoblastoma initial results. Ophthalmology 2008, 115, 1398–1404.e1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Yousef, Y.A.; Soliman, S.E.; Astudillo, P.P.P.; Durairaj, P.; Dimaras, H.; Chan, H.S.L.; Heon, E.; Gallie, B.L.; Shaikh, F. Intra-arterial Chemotherapy for Retinoblastoma: A Systematic Review. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016, 134, 584–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Francis, J.H.; Abramson, D.H.; Gaillard, M.C.; Marr, B.P.; Beck-Popovic, M.; Munier, F.L. The classification of vitreous seeds in retinoblastoma and response to intravitreal melphalan. Ophthalmology 2015, 122, 1173–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Smith, S.J.; Smith, B.D. Evaluating the risk of extraocular tumour spread following intravitreal injection therapy for retinoblastoma: A systematic review. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2013, 97, 1231–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Francis, J.H.; Iyer, S.; Gobin, Y.P.; Brodie, S.E.; Abramson, D.H. Retinoblastoma Vitreous Seed Clouds (Class 3): A Comparison of Treatment with Ophthalmic Artery Chemosurgery with or without Intravitreous and Periocular Chemotherapy. Ophthalmology 2017, 124, 1548–1555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Shields, C.L.; Alset, A.E.; Say, E.A.; Caywood, E.; Jabbour, P.; Shields, J.A. Retinoblastoma Control With Primary Intra-arterial Chemotherapy: Outcomes Before and During the Intravitreal Chemotherapy Era. J. Pediatr. Ophthalmol. Strabismus 2016, 53, 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Honavar, S.G.; Singh, A.D.; Shields, C.L.; Meadows, A.T.; Demirci, H.; Cater, J.; Shields, J.A. Postenucleation adjuvant therapy in high-risk retinoblastoma. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2002, 120, 923–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Dunkel, I.J.; Chan, H.S.; Jubran, R.; Chantada, G.L.; Goldman, S.; Chintagumpala, M.; Khakoo, Y.; Abramson, D.H. High-dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem cell rescue for stage 4B retinoblastoma. Pediatr. Blood Cancer 2010, 55, 149–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Dunkel, I.J.; Khakoo, Y.; Kernan, N.A.; Gershon, T.; Gilheeney, S.; Lyden, D.C.; Wolden, S.L.; Orjuela, M.; Gardner, S.L.; Abramson, D.H. Intensive multimodality therapy for patients with stage 4a metastatic retinoblastoma. Pediatr. Blood Cancer 2010, 55, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Chan, J.J.T.; Lam, C.P.S.; Kwok, M.K.M.; Wong, R.L.M.; Lee, G.K.Y.; Lau, W.W.Y.; Yam, J.C.S. Risk of recurrence of retinopathy of prematurity after initial intravitreal ranibizumab therapy. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 27082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Chow, S.C.; Lam, P.Y.; Lam, W.C.; Fung, N.S.K. The role of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor in treatment of retinopathy of prematurity-a current review. Eye 2022, 36, 1532–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Williams, C.; Northstone, K.; Howard, M.; Harvey, I.; Harrad, R.A.; Sparrow, J.M. Prevalence and risk factors for common vision problems in children: Data from the ALSPAC study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2008, 92, 959–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Greenberg, A.E.; Mohney, B.G.; Diehl, N.N.; Burke, J.P. Incidence and types of childhood esotropia: A population-based study. Ophthalmology 2007, 114, 170–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Pennefather, P.M.; Clarke, M.P.; Strong, N.P.; Cottrell, D.G.; Dutton, J.; Tin, W. Risk factors for strabismus in children born before 32 weeks’ gestation. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999, 83, 514–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Holmstrom, G.; el Azazi, M.; Kugelberg, U. Ophthalmological follow up of preterm infants: A population based, prospective study of visual acuity and strabismus. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999, 83, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. O’Connor, A.R.; Stephenson, T.J.; Johnson, A.; Tobin, M.J.; Ratib, S.; Fielder, A.R. Strabismus in children of birth weight less than 1701 g. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2002, 120, 767–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Abramson, D.H.; Frank, C.M.; Susman, M.; Whalen, M.P.; Dunkel, I.J.; Boyd, N.W., 3rd. Presenting signs of retinoblastoma. J. Pediatr. 1998, 132, 505–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Weakley, D.R., Jr.; Birch, E.; Kip, K. The role of anisometropia in the development of accommodative esotropia. J. AAPOS 2001, 5, 153–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Wright, K.W.S.; Peter, H. Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  88. American Academy of Pediatrics; Section on Ophthalmology; American Association for Pediatric, Ophthalmology; Strabismus; American Academy of Ophthalmology. American Association of Certified Orthoptists. Red reflex examination in neonates, infants, and children. Pediatrics 2008, 122, 1401–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Kanukollu, V.M.S. Strabismus; StatPearls: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  90. PWallace, D.K.; Christiansen, S.P.; Sprunger, D.T.; Melia, M.; Lee, K.A.; Morse, C.L.; Repka, M.X.; American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern Pediatric Ophthalmology/Strabismus Panel. Esotropia and Exotropia Preferred Practice Pattern(R). Ophthalmology 2018, 125, P143–P183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Bateman, J.B.; Parks, M.M.; Wheeler, N. Discriminant analysis of acquired esotropia surgery. Predictor variables for short- and long-term outcomes. Ophthalmology 1983, 90, 1154–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Donahue, S.P. Clinical practice. Pediatric strabismus. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007, 356, 1040–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Joyce, K.E.; Beyer, F.; Thomson, R.G.; Clarke, M.P. A systematic review of the effectiveness of treatments in altering the natural history of intermittent exotropia. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2015, 99, 440–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kampanartsanyakorn, S.; Surachatkumtonekul, T.; Dulayajinda, D.; Jumroendararasmee, M.; Tongsae, S. The outcomes of horizontal strabismus surgery and influencing factors of the surgical success. J. Med. Assoc. Thai. 2005, 88 (Suppl. 9), S94–S99. [Google Scholar]
  95. Leske, D.A.; Holmes, J.M. Maximum angle of horizontal strabismus consistent with true stereopsis. J. AAPOS 2004, 8, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Xu, T.T.; Bothun, C.E.; Hendricks, T.M.; Mansukhani, S.A.; Bothun, E.D.; Hodge, D.O.; Mohney, B.G. Pseudostrabismus in the First Year of Life and the Subsequent Diagnosis of Strabismus. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2020, 218, 242–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Pritchard, C.; Ellis, G.S., Jr. Manifest strabismus following pseudostrabismus diagnosis. Am. Orthopt. J. 2007, 57, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Sefi-Yurdakul, N.; Tugcu, B. Development of Strabismus in Children Initially Diagnosed with Pseudostrabismus. Strabismus 2016, 24, 70–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Magdalene, D.; Bhattacharjee, H.; Choudhury, M.; Multani, P.K.; Singh, A.; Deshmukh, S.; Gupta, K. Community outreach: An indicator for assessment of prevalence of amblyopia. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2018, 66, 940–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. McKean-Cowdin, R.; Cotter, S.A.; Tarczy-Hornoch, K.; Wen, G.; Kim, J.; Borchert, M.; Varma, R.; Multi-Ethnic Pediatric Eye Disease Study, G. Prevalence of amblyopia or strabismus in asian and non-Hispanic white preschool children: Multi-ethnic pediatric eye disease study. Ophthalmology 2013, 120, 2117–2124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  101. Fu, Z.; Hong, H.; Su, Z.; Lou, B.; Pan, C.W.; Liu, H. Global prevalence of amblyopia and disease burden projections through 2040: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2020, 104, 1164–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Hamm, L.M.; Black, J.; Dai, S.; Thompson, B. Global processing in amblyopia: A review. Front. Psychol. 2014, 5, 583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator, G. A randomized trial of atropine vs. patching for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2002, 120, 268–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Cotter, S.A.; Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator, G.; Edwards, A.R.; Wallace, D.K.; Beck, R.W.; Arnold, R.W.; Astle, W.F.; Barnhardt, C.N.; Birch, E.E.; Donahue, S.P.; et al. Treatment of anisometropic amblyopia in children with refractive correction. Ophthalmology 2006, 113, 895–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Repka, M.X.; Beck, R.W.; Holmes, J.M.; Birch, E.E.; Chandler, D.L.; Cotter, S.A.; Hertle, R.W.; Kraker, R.T.; Moke, P.S.; Quinn, G.E.; et al. A randomized trial of patching regimens for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2003, 121, 603–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Li, Y.; Sun, H.; Zhu, X.; Su, Y.; Yu, T.; Wu, X.; Zhou, X.; Jing, L. Efficacy of interventions for amblyopia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMC Ophthalmol. 2020, 20, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Brin, T.A.; Chow, A.; Carter, C.; Oremus, M.; Bobier, W.; Thompson, B. Efficacy of vision-based treatments for children and teens with amblyopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2021, 6, e000657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Birch, E.E.; Kelly, K.R.; Wang, J. Recent Advances in Screening and Treatment for Amblyopia. Ophthalmol. Ther. 2021, 10, 815–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Sheeladevi, S.; Lawrenson, J.G.; Fielder, A.R.; Suttle, C.M. Global prevalence of childhood cataract: A systematic review. Eye 2016, 30, 1160–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Rahi, J.S.; Dezateux, C.; British Congenital Cataract Interest, G. Measuring and interpreting the incidence of congenital ocular anomalies: Lessons from a national study of congenital cataract in the UK. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2001, 42, 1444–1448. [Google Scholar]
  111. Abrahamsson, M.; Magnusson, G.; Sjostrom, A.; Popovic, Z.; Sjostrand, J. The occurrence of congenital cataract in western Sweden. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1999, 77, 578–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Holmes, J.M.; Leske, D.A.; Burke, J.P.; Hodge, D.O. Birth prevalence of visually significant infantile cataract in a defined U.S. population. Ophthalmic. Epidemiol. 2003, 10, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Khokhar, S.K.; Pillay, G.; Dhull, C.; Agarwal, E.; Mahabir, M.; Aggarwal, P. Pediatric cataract. Indian. J Ophthalmol. 2017, 65, 1340–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Tongue, A.C.; Cibis, G.W. Bruckner test. Ophthalmology 1981, 88, 1041–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Calhoun, J.H. Cataracts in children. Pediatr. Clin. North. Am. 1983, 30, 1061–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Bremond-Gignac, D.; Daruich, A.; Robert, M.P.; Valleix, S. Recent developments in the management of congenital cataract. Ann. Transl. Med. 2020, 8, 1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Greenwald, M.J.; Glaser, S.R. Visual outcomes after surgery for unilateral cataract in children more than two years old: Posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation versus contact lens correction of aphakia. J. AAPOS 1998, 2, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Infant Aphakia Treatment Study, G.; Lambert, S.R.; Lynn, M.J.; Hartmann, E.E.; DuBois, L.; Drews-Botsch, C.; Freedman, S.F.; Plager, D.A.; Buckley, E.G.; Wilson, M.E. Comparison of contact lens and intraocular lens correction of monocular aphakia during infancy: A randomized clinical trial of HOTV optotype acuity at age 4.5 years and clinical findings at age 5 years. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014, 132, 676–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Bothun, E.D.; Wilson, M.E.; Yen, K.G.; Anderson, J.S.; Weil, N.C.; Loh, A.R.; Morrison, D.; Freedman, S.F.; Plager, D.A.; Vanderveen, D.K.; et al. Outcomes of Bilateral Cataract Surgery in Infants 7 to 24 Months of Age Using the Toddler Aphakia and Pseudophakia Treatment Study Registry. Ophthalmology 2021, 128, 302–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Struck, M.C. Long-term results of pediatric cataract surgery and primary intraocular lens implantation from 7 to 22 months of life. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015, 133, 1180–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Self, J.E.; Taylor, R.; Solebo, A.L.; Biswas, S.; Parulekar, M.; Dev Borman, A.; Ashworth, J.; McClenaghan, R.; Abbott, J.; O’Flynn, E.; et al. Cataract management in children: A review of the literature and current practice across five large UK centres. Eye 2020, 34, 2197–2218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Kipp, M.A. Childhood glaucoma. Pediatr. Clin. North Am. 2003, 50, 89–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. deLuise, V.P.; Anderson, D.R. Primary infantile glaucoma (congenital glaucoma). Surv Ophthalmol 1983, 28, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. MacKinnon, J.R.; Giubilato, A.; Elder, J.E.; Craig, J.E.; Mackey, D.A. Primary infantile glaucoma in an Australian population. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2004, 32, 14–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Alanazi, F.F.; Song, J.C.; Mousa, A.; Morales, J.; Al Shahwan, S.; Alodhayb, S.; Al Jadaan, I.; Al-Turkmani, S.; Edward, D.P. Primary and secondary congenital glaucoma: Baseline features from a registry at King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2013, 155, 882–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Gencik, A. Epidemiology and genetics of primary congenital glaucoma in Slovakia. Description of a form of primary congenital glaucoma in gypsies with autosomal-recessive inheritance and complete penetrance. Dev. Ophthalmol. 1989, 16, 76–115. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  127. Girgis, N.M.; Frantz, K.A. A case of primary congenital glaucoma: A diagnostic dilemma. Optometry 2007, 78, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Yu Chan, J.Y.; Choy, B.N.; Ng, A.L.; Shum, J.W. Review on the Management of Primary Congenital Glaucoma. J. Curr. Glaucoma. Pract. 2015, 9, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Giangiacomo, A.; Beck, A. Pediatric glaucoma: Review of recent literature. Curr. Opin. Ophthalmol. 2017, 28, 199–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  130. Lingham, G.; Thakur, S.; Safi, S.; Gordon, I.; Evans, J.R.; Keel, S. A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for childhood glaucoma. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2022, 7, e000933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Shah, M.; Bouhenni, R.; Benmerzouga, I. Geographical Variability in CYP1B1 Mutations in Primary Congenital Glaucoma. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Ghate, D.; Wang, X. Surgical interventions for primary congenital glaucoma. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015, 1, CD008213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  133. Hoskins, H.D., Jr.; Shaffer, R.N.; Hetherington, J. Goniotomy vs trabeculotomy. J. Pediatr. Ophthalmol. Strabismus 1984, 21, 153–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Maeda-Chubachi, T.; Chi-Burris, K.; Simons, B.D.; Freedman, S.F.; Khaw, P.T.; Wirostko, B.; Yan, E.; A6111137 Study Group. Comparison of latanoprost and timolol in pediatric glaucoma: A phase 3, 12-week, randomized, double-masked multicenter study. Ophthalmology 2011, 118, 2014–2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Coppens, G.; Stalmans, I.; Zeyen, T.; Casteels, I. The safety and efficacy of glaucoma medication in the pediatric population. J. Pediatr. Ophthalmol. Strabismus 2009, 46, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Shields, M.B. Axenfeld-Rieger syndrome: A theory of mechanism and distinctions from the iridocorneal endothelial syndrome. Trans. Am. Ophthalmol. Soc. 1983, 81, 736–784. [Google Scholar]
  137. Bhandari, R.; Ferri, S.; Whittaker, B.; Liu, M.; Lazzaro, D.R. Peters anomaly: Review of the literature. Cornea 2011, 30, 939–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Francois, J. Corticosteroid glaucoma. Ophthalmologica 1984, 188, 76–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Egbert, J.E.; Wright, M.M.; Dahlhauser, K.F.; Keithahn, M.A.; Letson, R.D.; Summers, C.G. A prospective study of ocular hypertension and glaucoma after pediatric cataract surgery. Ophthalmology 1995, 102, 1098–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Margo, C.E. Congenital aniridia: A histopathologic study of the anterior segment in children. J. Pediatr. Ophthalmol. Strabismus 1983, 20, 192–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Sharan, S.; Swamy, B.; Taranath, D.A.; Jamieson, R.; Yu, T.; Wargon, O.; Grigg, J.R. Port-wine vascular malformations and glaucoma risk in Sturge-Weber syndrome. J. AAPOS 2009, 13, 374–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Ramirez, D.A.; Porco, T.C.; Lietman, T.M.; Keenan, J.D. Epidemiology of Conjunctivitis in US Emergency Departments. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017, 135, 1119–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Rietveld, R.P.; van Weert, H.C.; ter Riet, G.; Bindels, P.J. Diagnostic impact of signs and symptoms in acute infectious conjunctivitis: Systematic literature search. BMJ 2003, 327, 789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  144. Roba, L.A.; Kowalski, R.P.; Gordon, A.T.; Romanowski, E.G.; Gordon, Y.J. Adenoviral ocular isolates demonstrate serotype-dependent differences in in vitro infectivity titers and clinical course. Cornea 1995, 14, 388–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Azari, A.A.; Barney, N.P. Conjunctivitis: A systematic review of diagnosis and treatment. JAMA 2013, 310, 1721–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Richards, A.; Guzman-Cottrill, J.A. Conjunctivitis. Pediatr. Rev. 2010, 31, 196–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Ryder, E.C.; Benson, S. Conjunctivitis; StatPearls: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  148. Renfro, L.; Snow, J.S. Ocular effects of topical and systemic steroids. Dermatol. Clin. 1992, 10, 505–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Wilkins, M.R.; Khan, S.; Bunce, C.; Khawaja, A.; Siriwardena, D.; Larkin, D.F. A randomised placebo-controlled trial of topical steroid in presumed viral conjunctivitis. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2011, 95, 1299–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Azar, M.J.; Dhaliwal, D.K.; Bower, K.S.; Kowalski, R.P.; Gordon, Y.J. Possible consequences of shaking hands with your patients with epidemic keratoconjunctivitis. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1996, 121, 711–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Hovding, G. Acute bacterial conjunctivitis. Acta Ophthalmol. 2008, 86, 5–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Workowski, K.A.; Bachmann, L.H.; Chan, P.A.; Johnston, C.M.; Muzny, C.A.; Park, I.; Reno, H.; Zenilman, J.M.; Bolan, G.A. Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021. MMWR Recomm. Rep. 2021, 70, 1–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. US Preventive Services Task Force; Curry, S.J.; Krist, A.H.; Owens, D.K.; Barry, M.J.; Caughey, A.B.; Davidson, K.W.; Doubeni, C.A.; Epling, J.W., Jr.; Kemper, A.R.; et al. Ocular Prophylaxis for Gonococcal Ophthalmia Neonatorum: US Preventive Services Task Force Reaffirmation Recommendation Statement. JAMA 2019, 321, 394–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  154. Vadoothker, S.; Andrews, L.; Jeng, B.H.; Levin, M.R. Management of Herpes Simplex Virus Keratitis in the Pediatric Population. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 2018, 37, 949–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Maini, R.; MacEwen, C.J.; Young, J.D. The natural history of epiphora in childhood. Eye 1998, 12, 669–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  156. Olitsky, S.E. Update on congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Int. Ophthalmol. Clin. 2014, 54, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Moscato, E.E.; Kelly, J.P.; Weiss, A. Developmental anatomy of the nasolacrimal duct: Implications for congenital obstruction. Ophthalmology 2010, 117, 2430–2434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Orge, F.H.; Boente, C.S. The lacrimal system. Pediatr. Clin. N. Am. 2014, 61, 529–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Pezzoli, M.P.; Bhupendra, C. Dacryostenosis; StatPearls: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  160. Sathiamoorthi, S.; Frank, R.D.; Mohney, B.G. Spontaneous Resolution and Timing of Intervention in Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018, 136, 1281–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  161. Petersen, R.A.; Robb, R.M. The natural course of congenital obstruction of the nasolacrimal duct. J. Pediatr. Ophthalmol. Strabismus 1978, 15, 246–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. MacEwen, C.J.; Young, J.D. Epiphora during the first year of life. Eye 1991, 5, 596–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  163. Kushner, B.J. Congenital nasolacrimal system obstruction. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1982, 100, 597–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Schnall, B.M. Pediatric nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Curr. Opin. Ophthalmol. 2013, 24, 421–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator, G. A randomized trial comparing the cost-effectiveness of 2 approaches for treating unilateral nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Arch. Ophthalmol. 2012, 130, 1525–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  166. Kuchar, A.; Lukas, J.; Steinkogler, F.J. Bacteriology and antibiotic therapy in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 2000, 78, 694–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Steinkogler, F.J. The postsaccal, idiopathic dacryostenosis--experimental and clinical aspects. Doc. Ophthalmol. 1986, 63, 265–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Baskin, D.E.; Reddy, A.K.; Chu, Y.I.; Coats, D.K. The timing of antibiotic administration in the management of infant dacryocystitis. J. AAPOS 2008, 12, 456–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Griepentrog, G.J.; Diehl, N.N.; Mohney, B.G. Incidence and demographics of childhood ptosis. Ophthalmology 2011, 118, 1180–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  170. Marenco, M.; Macchi, I.; Macchi, I.; Galassi, E.; Massaro-Giordano, M.; Lambiase, A. Clinical presentation and management of congenital ptosis. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2017, 11, 453–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  171. Ugurbas, S.H.; Zilelioglu, G. Corneal topography in patients with congenital ptosis. Eye 1999, 13, 550–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  172. Harrad, R.A.; Graham, C.M.; Collin, J.R. Amblyopia and strabismus in congenital ptosis. Eye 1988, 2, 625–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Beckingsale, P.S.; Sullivan, T.J.; Wong, V.A.; Oley, C. Blepharophimosis: A recommendation for early surgery in patients with severe ptosis. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2003, 31, 138–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Bernardini, F.P.; Devoto, M.H.; Priolo, E. Treatment of unilateral congenital ptosis. Ophthalmology 2007, 114, 622–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Kilcline, C.; Frieden, I.J. Infantile hemangiomas: How common are they? A systematic review of the medical literature. Pediatr. Dermatol. 2008, 25, 168–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Metry, D.W.; Hebert, A.A. Benign cutaneous vascular tumors of infancy: When to worry, what to do. Arch. Dermatol. 2000, 136, 905–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Chang, L.C.; Haggstrom, A.N.; Drolet, B.A.; Baselga, E.; Chamlin, S.L.; Garzon, M.C.; Horii, K.A.; Lucky, A.W.; Mancini, A.J.; Metry, D.W.; et al. Growth characteristics of infantile hemangiomas: Implications for management. Pediatrics 2008, 122, 360–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  178. Drolet, B.A.; Esterly, N.B.; Frieden, I.J. Hemangiomas in children. N. Engl. J. Med. 1999, 341, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Krowchuk, D.P.; Frieden, I.J.; Mancini, A.J.; Darrow, D.H.; Blei, F.; Greene, A.K.; Annam, A.; Baker, C.N.; Frommelt, P.C.; Hodak, A.; et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Infantile Hemangiomas. Pediatrics 2019, 143, 3946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  180. Vassallo, P.; Forte, R.; Di Mezza, A.; Magli, A. Treatment of infantile capillary hemangioma of the eyelid with systemic propranolol. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2013, 155, 165–170 e162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  181. Schwartz, S.R.; Kodsi, S.R.; Blei, F.; Ceisler, E.; Steele, M.; Furlan, L. Treatment of capillary hemangiomas causing refractive and occlusional amblyopia. J. AAPOS 2007, 11, 577–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  182. Men, C.J.; Ediriwickrema, L.S.; Paik, J.S.; Murdock, J.; Yen, M.T.; Ng, J.D.; Liu, C.Y.; Korn, B.S.; Kikkawa, D.O. Surgical Intervention of Periocular Infantile Hemangiomas in the Era of beta-Blockers. Ophthalmic. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2020, 36, 70–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Stier, M.F.; Glick, S.A.; Hirsch, R.J. Laser treatment of pediatric vascular lesions: Port wine stains and hemangiomas. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2008, 58, 261–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Shields, J.A.; Shields, C.L. Orbital cysts of childhood–classification, clinical features, and management. Surv. Ophthalmol. 2004, 49, 281–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Yen, K.G.; Yen, M.T. Current trends in the surgical management of orbital dermoid cysts among pediatric ophthalmologists. J. Pediatr. Ophthalmol. Strabismus 2006, 43, 337–340; quiz 363–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Cavazza, S.; Laffi, G.L.; Lodi, L.; Gasparrini, E.; Tassinari, G. Orbital dermoid cyst of childhood: Clinical pathologic findings, classification and management. Int. Ophthalmol. 2011, 31, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Powell, C.; Hatt, S.R. Vision screening for amblyopia in childhood. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2009, 3, CD005020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Pediatric Vision Screening Tests and Referral Indications by Age.
Table 1. Pediatric Vision Screening Tests and Referral Indications by Age.
TestReferral IndicationsBirth to 6 Months6–12 Months1–3 Years3–4 Years4–5 Years6+ Years
Red reflexAbsent, white, dull, opacified, or asymmetric
External inspectionStructural abnormality (e.g., ptosis)
Pupillary examinationIrregular shape, unequal size, poor or unequal reaction to light
Fix and followFailure to fix and followCooperative infant ≥3 months
Corneal light reflectionAsymmetric or displaced
Instrument-based screeningFailure to meet screening criteria
Cover testRefixation movement
Visual acuityWorse than 20/50 either eye or 2 lines of differences between the eyes
Visual acuityWorse than 20/40 either eye
Visual acuityWorse than 3 of 5 optotypes on 20/30 line, or 2 lines of difference between the eyes
Reprinted from Ophthalmology, 125, Wallace DK, Morse CL, Melia M, et al., Pediatric Eye Evaluations Preferred Practice Pattern®: I. Vision Screening in the Primary Care and Community Setting; II. Comprehensive Ophthalmic Examination, P184–P227, Copyright 2017, with permission from the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Similar recommendations from the AAP and AAPOS are nearly identical [15]. Guidelines from the USPSTF only recommend vision screening for children of ages 3–5 years [16].
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lam, M.; Suh, D. Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Pediatric Ocular Diseases. Children 2022, 9, 1939. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9121939

AMA Style

Lam M, Suh D. Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Pediatric Ocular Diseases. Children. 2022; 9(12):1939. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9121939

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lam, Matthew, and Donny Suh. 2022. "Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Pediatric Ocular Diseases" Children 9, no. 12: 1939. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9121939

APA Style

Lam, M., & Suh, D. (2022). Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Pediatric Ocular Diseases. Children, 9(12), 1939. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9121939

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop