4.4 Article

SUBFOVEAL CHOROIDAL THICKNESS CHANGES IN TREATED IDIOPATHIC CENTRAL SEROUS CHORIORETINOPATHY AND THEIR ASSOCIATION WITH RECURRENCE

Journal

RETINA-THE JOURNAL OF RETINAL AND VITREOUS DISEASES
Volume 35, Issue 9, Pages 1867-1874

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000000557

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, Republic of Korea [NRF-2013R1A2A2A01068457]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To analyze the changes in subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFChT) before and after resolution of central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC) and their association with recurrence during follow-up. Methods: Seventy-six eyes with CSC that were completely resolved after treatment with either intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB, 42 eyes) or with half-fluence photodynamic therapy (34 eyes) were included. Best-corrected visual acuity and spectral domain optical coherence tomography were performed at baseline, after complete resolution, and at regular intervals thereafter. Results: Subfoveal choroidal thickness was similar in the IVB-treated and half-fluence photodynamic therapy-treated eyes at baseline, as well as after complete resolution of the CSC. However, recurrence was more frequent in the IVB-treated eyes (19.0% vs. 2.9%, P = 0.037). The reduction of SFChT after CSC resolution was greater in the nonrecurrent eyes than in the recurrent eyes (91.35 +/- 46.40 vs. 19.25 +/- 16.47 mu m, P < 0.001), and the extent of SFChT reduction was associated with the rate of recurrence of CSC (odds ratio = 0.877, P = 0.019). When CSC recurred, SFChT increased toward the baseline value. Conclusion: Treatment of idiopathic CSC by both IVB and half-fluence photodynamic therapy can reduce SFChT when subretinal fluid is completely resolved. Recurrence is more frequent after IVB and specifically in eyes with a smaller reduction in SFChT after resolution of the CSC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available