4.4 Article

PHOTODYNAMIC THERAPY FOR SYMPTOMATIC SUBFOVEAL RETINAL PIGMENT EPITHELIAL DETACHMENT IN CENTRAL SEROUS CHORIORETINOPATHY Outcomes and Prognostic Factors

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000002108

关键词

retinal pigment epithelial detachment; central serous chorioretinopathy; photodynamic therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To report the clinical outcomes of reduced-fluence photodynamic therapy (PDT) for symptomatic subfoveal retinal pigment epithelial detachment (RPED) in central serous chorioretinopathy and identify prognostic factors affecting treatment outcome. Methods: This retrospective interventional study included 35 eyes of 35 patients with serous subfoveal RPED with choroidal hyperpermeability. Cases with evidence of age-related macular degeneration were excluded from the study. Reduced-fluence PDT was applied to each patient. Best-corrected visual acuity, anatomical resolution of RPED, subjective symptom improvement, and complications were analyzed. Results: One month after reduced-fluence PDT, 28 eyes (80.0%) manifested complete resolution of subfoveal RPED. Among the patients whose eyes manifested complete resolution, 19 (67.9%) reported subjective vision improvement. This subjective improvement was significantly associated with the presence of dysmorphopsia at baseline. Logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution visual acuity improved from 0.15 (Snellen equivalent of 20/28) to 0.09 (20/25) between baseline and 3 months after PDT (P = 0.008). Older age and increased RPED height were independent risk factors of poor resolution of RPED after PDT. The mean follow-up period after treatment was 10.4 +/- 13.6 months; recurrence of RPED did not occur in any case. Conclusion: Subfoveal RPED in central serous chorioretinopathy responded well to reduced-fluence PDT, especially in younger patients with less RPED. Dysmorphopsia, rather than decreased visual acuity, is a main symptomatic presentation in subfoveal RPED.

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

4.4
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