4.2 Article

Optical coherence tomography angiography findings of multiple sclerosis with or without optic neuritis

Journal

NEUROLOGICAL RESEARCH
Volume 42, Issue 4, Pages 319-326

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01616412.2020.1726585

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis; optic neuritis; optical coherence tomography angiography; vessel density

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Nowadays, retinal microvascular structures can be investigated using optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA). We aimed to evaluate the probable vascular changes in the foveal and peripapillary regions of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods: A total of 20 patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) and 24 healthy controls were recruited in this study. All participants' superficial and deeper retinal and peripapillary layers were evaluated using OCTA after a total ophthalmologic examination. Results: In the superficial plexus, the whole image (49.53 +/- 3.9% and 51.83 +/- 2.1%, p = 0.009), superior hemisphere (49.44 +/- 4.11% and 51.63 +/- 2.3%, p = 0.018), inferior hemisphere (49.75 +/- 3.9% and 52.03 +/- 2.2%, p = 0.012), parafoveal (51.87 +/- 3.9% and 53.08 +/- 3.46%, p = 0.048) and perifoveal (50.41 +/- 3.86% and 52.76 +/- 2.1%, p = 0.007) vascular densities were statistically significant lesser in patients with RRMS than in controls. In the optic disc OCTA parameters, the vessel density of the inferior (50.15 +/- 6.99% and 53.04 +/- 3.63% p = 0.043) and temporal sector (48.09 +/- 5.47% and 50.85 +/- 5.24%, p = 0.045) were statistically significantly lesser in patients with RRMS than in controls. Conclusion: The reductions in vessel density of the retinal or peripapillary area of patients with RRMS shown in this study should be investigated further to determine whether it is a secondary lesion to optic neuritis (ON) or a primary vasculopathic condition of MS.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available