4.7 Article

Mid-Phase Hyperfluorescent Plaques Seen on Indocyanine Green Angiography in Patients with Central Serous Chorioretinopathy

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10194525

关键词

central serous chorioretinopathy; indocyanine green angiography; choroidal hyperpermeability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In patients with central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR), mid-phase hyperfluorescent plaques (MPHP) were detected in 59.4% of eyes. MPHP were associated with a chronic form of the disease, the presence of irregular pigment epithelium detachments (PED) and changes in the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) seen on FA.
(1) Indocyanine green angiography (ICG-A) shows the presence of mid-phase hyperfluorescent area in central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR). However, their exact meaning remains uncertain. (2) The clinical and multimodal imaging findings of 100 patients (133 eyes) with CSCR, including the enhanced-depth-imaging OCT (EDI-OCT), blue-light fundus autofluorescence (BAF), fluorescein and indocyanine green angiography (FA and ICG-A) findings were reviewed. Mid-phase hyperfluorescent plaques (MPHP) were defined as fairly well circumscribed hyperfluorescent regions during the midphase of the ICG-A. The association between MPHP and other clinical/imaging parameters was assessed using a multiple logistic regression analysis. (3) MPHP were detected in 59.4% of eyes with CSCR. The chronic form of the disease, the presence of irregular pigment epithelium detachments (PED) and the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) changes seen on FA were associated with the presence of MPHP in the multivariate analysis (p = 0.015; p = 0.018 and p = 0.002; respectively). OCT showed RPE bulges or PED in 98.7% of areas with MPHP and BAF showed changes in 57.3% of areas with MPHP. (4) MPHP were associated with a chronic form of CSCR and colocated with PED or RPE bulges. MPHP should be recognized as a sign of early RPE dysfunction before it is detected with BAF.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据