Advertisement

Spontaneous regression of congenital corneal opacity

  • Sooyeon Choe
  • Chang Ho Yoon
  • Mee Kum Kim
  • Joon Young Hyon
  • Young Suk Yu
  • Joo Youn OhEmail author
Cornea
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the incidence of spontaneous regression of congenital corneal opacity (CCO) and identify clinical factors associated with the regression.

Methods

Medical records and anterior segment photographs were reviewed of 57 eyes in 35 patients with CCO that were not related to congenital glaucoma, tumors, infection, trauma, or metabolic disorders and were followed up without corneal transplantation for longer than one year at Seoul National University Hospital. Spontaneous regression of corneal opacity was defined as a decrease in corneal opacity significant enough for visual axis clearance. Data on demographics, systemic, and ocular characteristics were collected and compared between patients who had spontaneous regression of CCO and those who did not.

Results

Spontaneous regression of corneal opacity developed in 32 eyes (22 patients, 56.1%) out of 57 CCO eyes (35 patients) at the mean 8.2 ± 5.4 months of age (the median 6.7 months). Absence of combined ocular anomalies such as iris anomaly, lens opacity, and peripheral corneal vascularization was significantly associated with the regression of opacity.

Conclusions

Corneal opacity can spontaneously regress in 56.1% of eyes with CCO during the first year of life. Careful follow-up with amblyopia management can be one of treatment options for CCO.

Keywords

Congenital corneal opacity Corneal vascularization Neonatal corneal opacity Regression Spontaneous regression 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Hospital (IRB No. H-1810-029-977) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from guardians of all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Bermejo E, Martinez-Frias ML (1998) Congenital eye malformations: clinical-epidemiological analysis of 1,124,654 consecutive births in Spain. Am J Med Genet 75:497–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kurilec JM, Zaidman GW (2014) Incidence of Peters anomaly and congenital corneal opacities interfering with vision in the United States. Cornea 33:848–850.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000000182 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vanathi M, Panda A, Vengayil S, Chaudhuri Z, Dada T (2009) Pediatric keratoplasty. Surv Ophthalmol 54:245–271.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2008.12.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huang C, O'Hara M, Mannis MJ (2009) Primary pediatric keratoplasty: indications and outcomes. Cornea 28:1003–1008.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181a186c0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lowe MT, Keane MC, Coster DJ, Williams KA (2011) The outcome of corneal transplantation in infants, children, and adolescents. Ophthalmology 118:492–497.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.07.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    AlArrayedh H, Collum L, Murphy CC (2018) Outcomes of penetrating keratoplasty in congenital hereditary endothelial dystrophy. Br J Ophthalmol 102:19–25.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-309565 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Al-Ghamdi A, Al-Rajhi A, Wagoner MD (2007) Primary pediatric keratoplasty: indications, graft survival, and visual outcome. J AAPOS 11:41–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaapos.2006.09.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rao KV, Fernandes M, Gangopadhyay N, Vemuganti GK, Krishnaiah S, Sangwan VS (2008) Outcome of penetrating keratoplasty for Peters anomaly. Cornea 27:749–753.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0b013e31816fe9a7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yang LL, Lambert SR, Drews-Botsch C, Stulting RD (2009) Long-term visual outcome of penetrating keratoplasty in infants and children with Peters anomaly. J AAPOS 13:175–180.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaapos.2008.10.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee HK, Kim MK, Oh JY (2018) Corneal abnormalities in congenital aniridia: congenital central corneal opacity verus aniridia-associated keratopathy. Am J Ophthalmol 185:75–80.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2017.10.017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim YW, Choi HJ, Kim MK, Wee WR, Yu YS, Oh JY (2013) Clinical outcome of penetrating keratoplasty in patients 5 years or younger: peters anomaly versus sclerocornea. Cornea 32:1432–1436.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0b013e31829dd836 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spierer O, Cavuoto KM, Suwannaraj S, McKeown CA, Chang TC (2018) Outcome of optical iridectomy in Peters anomaly. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 256:1679–1683.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-018-4000-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yoshikawa H, Sotozono C, Ikeda Y, Mori K, Ueno M, Kinoshita S (2017) Long-term clinical course in eyes with Peters anomaly. Cornea 36:448–451.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000001161 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krachmer JH, Mannis MJ, Edward J (eds) (2017) Cornea. Elsevier Mosby, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gupta N, Kalaivani M, Tandon R (2011) Comparison of prognostic value of Roper Hall and Dua classification systems in acute ocular burns. Br J Ophthalmol 95:194–198.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2009.173724 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim YJ, Jeoung JW, Kim MK, Park KH, Yu YS, Oh JY (2018) Clinical features and outcome of corneal opacity associated with congenital glaucoma. BMC Ophthalmol 18:190.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-018-0865-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jullienne R, Manoli P, Tiffet T, He Z, Rannou K, Thuret G, Gain P (2015) Corneal endothelium self-healing mathematical model after inadvertent descemetorhexis. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:2313–2318.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.10.043 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Soh YQ, Peh G, George BL, Seah XY, Primalani NK, Adnan K, Mehta JS (2016) Predicative factors for corneal endothelial cell migration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 57:338–348.  https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.15-18300 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harwerth RS, Smith EL 3rd, Duncan GC, Crawford ML, von Noorden GK (1986) Multiple sensitive periods in the development of the primate visual system. Science 232:235–238.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3952507 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhu AY, Marquezan MC, Kraus CL, Prescott CR (2018) Pediatric corneal transplants: review of current practice patterns. Cornea 37:973–980.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000001613 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cowden JW (1990) Penetrating keratoplasty in infants and children. Ophthalmology 97:324–328.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(90)32586-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nischal KK (2012) A new approach to the classification of neonatal corneal opacities. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 23:344–354.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0b013e328356893d CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologySeoul National University HospitalSeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologySeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulKorea
  3. 3.Department of OphthalmologySeoul National University Bundang HospitalSeongnamKorea

Personalised recommendations