4.6 Article

Choroidal Neovascularization Associated With Focal Choroidal Excavation

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 157, Issue 3, Pages 710-718

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2013.12.011

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To describe the clinical and imaging characteristics of choroidal neovascularization (CNV) accompanied by focal choroidal excavation. DESIGN: Retrospective, interventional case series. METHODS: The medical records of 16 patients (16 eyes) were reviewed. Imaging findings including fluorescein angiography (FA), indocyanine green angiography, and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD OCT) were analyzed. RESULTS: CNV complexes were primarily located beneath the retinal pigment epithelium (type 1 CNV) in 9 eyes and in the subneurosensory retinal space (type 2 CNV) in 7 eyes, as assessed by SD OCT. Seven of 8 patients over 50 years old had type 1 CNV, and 6 of 8 patients under 50 had type 2 lesions. All 7 eyes with type 2 CNV exhibited classic CNV on FA. Additionally, 7 of 9 eyes with type 1 CNV had the classic pattern, and in these eyes, the CNV complexes were confined to the concavity of choroidal excavation. In 15 patients treated by anti vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections, the mean best-corrected visual acuity improved from 20/44 to 20/26 with a mean of 3.7 injections during a mean follow-up period of 14.5 months. CONCLUSIONS: The CNV growth pattern and extent seem to be determined by the degree of damage to the retinal pigment epithelium/Bruch membrane complex resulting from choroidal excavation, as well as age. Neovascular complexes tend to be located within the boundary of choroidal excavation and are revealed as classic patterns on FA, even in type 1 CNV. AntiVEGF was notably effective for treating these lesions, with a low rate of recurrence. (C) 2014 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available