Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is one of the leading causes of visual impairment in children. As understanding on the pathogenesis of ROP accumulated, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs and their application have changed the treatment mode. Anti-VEGF therapy, with convenient operation and clear efficacy, has become an important treatment method for ROP. However, due to the dysfunction of organs in children with ROP, anti-VEGF drugs can enter blood circulation after intravitreal injection and then lead to temporarily reduction of the VEGF level in the blood, which may theoretically cause adverse effects on the development of all organs (especially the brain) in children with ROP. Therefore, it's necessary to pay attention to the effect of anti-VEGF drugs on neurodevelopment in children with ROP, strictly grasp the indications, and standardize its clinical application, so as to continuously improve the overall prognosis of ROP.
Objective To compare the thickness of the macular ganglion cell inner plexiform layer (mGCIPL) in patients with a history of laser photocoagulation (LP) versus intravitreal injection of ranibizumab (IVR) for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). MethodsA retrospective clinical study. From June 2020 to January 2021, 70 eyes of 35 children with a history of surgery for ROP in Shenzhen Eye Hospital were included in the study. Among them, 18 males had 36 eyes, and 17 females had 34 eyes. The average age was 5.54±1.04 years. There were 18 patients (36 eyes) in LP group and 17 patients (34 eyes) in IVR group. There was no significant difference in age (t=－1.956), sexual composition ratio (χ2=0.030), birth gestational age (t=－1.316) and birth weight (t=－1.060) between the two groups (P=0.059, 0.862, 0.197, 0.297). All the eyes underwent the examination of optical coherence tomography (OCT). An elliptical region of 14.13 mm2 centered on macular fovea was scanned according to the macular cube 512×128 model of the Cirrus HD-OCT 5000. The software was used to automatically divide macular fovea into six sectors (superior, inferior, temporal-superior, temporal-inferior, nasal-superior and nasal-inferior) and the average and minimum thickness of mGCIPL. t test was used to compared mGCIPL thickness between two groups using independent samples. Pearson correlation analysis was used to evaluate the correlation between mGCIPL thickness and age, birth gestational age, birth weight. ResultsPatients in IVR group had significantly decreased mGCIPL thickness than that in LP group in the six sectors (superior, inferior, temporal-superior, temporal-inferior, nasal-superior and nasal-inferior) and the average and minimum (t=6.484, 6.719, 7.682, 7.697, 5.151, 5.008, 7.148, 6.581; P＜0.05). The thickness of mGCIPL was not significantly correlated with age, birth gestational age, birth weight (P＞0.05). ConclusionThe thickness of mGCIPL in patients with IVR treatment history is thinner than that in LP treatment.