Background Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is a well-known complication in preterm infants. Data on the incidence of ROP in Indonesia, in relation to birth weight (BW) and gestational age (GA), are limited.
Objective To report the incidence of ROP in one of the oldest and largest neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) in Indonesia.
Methods We studied the incidence and severity of ROP in inborn infants with a BW of ≤1500 g and/or GA of ≤32 weeks, who were admitted to the NICU of Harapan Kita Women and Children Hospital, Jakarta. In addition, infants with a higher BW and GA, receiving more than 40% oxygen for a longer period, were screened.
Results In 2005–2015, 182 infants were born with a BW of <1000 g and 437 with a weight of 1000–1500 g. In the <1000 g group, 27 (46%) of the screened infants showed no ROP, 22 (37%) showed ROP 1–2 and 10 (17%) showed ROP 3–5. In the 1000–1500 g group, 172 (68%) were without ROP, 71 (28%) with ROP 1–2 and nine (4%) with ROP 3–5. Twenty-two (13%) of the 163 screened infants weighing 1500–2000 g showed ROP 1–2 and two (1.2%) had ROP 3–5. Eight (18%) of the 44 screened infants born with a BW of more than 2000 g showed ROP 1–2 and none showed ROP 3–5.
Conclusion The total incidence of ROP as well as severe ROP in infants with a BW of <1000 g and 1000–1500 g in our NICU is higher than in a developed country. ROP in Indonesia is also seen in infants with a BW of 1500–2500 g. Increasing the awareness of the risks of oxygen as well as better equipment to monitor oxygen delivery is essential.
- retinopathy of prematurity
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors JES is the person who wrote the first draft of this manuscript and involved directly in whole aspects of this research/manuscript. NWH contributed to the interpretation and discussions in ophthalmology. PJJS assisted in literature review, wrote the report and wrote the discussion section.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Detail has been removed from this case description/these case descriptions to ensure anonymity. The editors and reviewers have seen the detailed information available and are satisfied that the information backs up the case the authors are making.
Ethics approval International Review Board of University of Indonesia School of Public Health.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.