4.6 Article

Loculation of Fluid in the Posterior Choroid in Eyes With Central Serous Chorioretinopathy

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 160, 期 6, 页码 1211-1216

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2015.08.018

关键词

-

资金

  1. MACULA FOUNDATION, INC, NEW YORK
  2. Topcon Medical Systems, Inc
  3. royalties, Topcon

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To evaluate potential accumulation of fluid, in the outer choroid in eyes with central serous choriore-tinopathy. DESIGN: Retrospective observational case series. METHODS: Patients in 2 community-based retinal practices were evaluated for hyporeflective areas in the outer choroid consistent with collections of fluid using enhanced depth imaging optical coherence tomography. Eligible patients were examined over the preceding 2 years, had a history of central serous chorioretinopathy, and did not have a history of choroidal neovascularization or photodynamic therapy. RESULTS: In the New York group there were 131 eyes of 70 patients who had a mean age of 56.3 (+/- 12.5) years, and 88 (67.2%) had hyporeflective regions consistent with posterior loculation of fluid in the macular region. In the Minnesota data set there were 91 eyes of 48 patients who had a mean age of 47.9 ( +/- 9.9) years and hyporeflective regions consistent with posterior loculation of fluid was present in 59 (64.8%). In the entire group the mean subfoveal choroidal thickness of those without loculated fluid was 344 Ran, as compared with 498 gm with loculated fluid (P < .001). The areas of loculated fluid were hyporeflective, were larger topographically than the large choroidal vessels, had an angular inner border, and did not have a bounding vascular wall. CONCLUSIONS: Posterior loculation of fluid is a common finding in central serous chorioretinopathy, but it has a different pattern and distribution than do collections of fluid in the outer choroid and suprachoroidal space as seen in other forms of choroidal effusion. (C) 2015 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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