4.6 Article

Persistent metamorphopsia associated with branch retinal vein occlusion

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 13, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204015

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To investigate longitudinal changes in metamorphopsia associated with branch retinal vein occlusion. Methods In this prospective observational case series, we included 32 eyes (32 patients) with branch retinal vein occlusion and acute macular edema. Eyes were treated as needed with intravitreal ranibizumab injections for 12 months. At baseline and 1, 6, and 12 months after initiating treatment, metamorphopsia was quantified using M-CHARTS. Retinal morphology was examined through optical coherence tomography. Results Logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution visual acuity progressively improved from 0.342 +/- 0.304 (Snellen equivalent: 20/44) at baseline to 0.199 +/- 0.259 (20/32) and 0.118 +/- 0.195 (20/26) at 1 and 12 months, respectively (both P < 0.001). The M-CHARTS score significantly decreased from 0.63 +/- 0.61 at baseline to 0.45 +/- 0.50 at 1 month (P = 0.044), but no further improvement was achieved with 1 year of additional treatment (6 months: 0.47 +/- 0.53 [P = 0.094] and 12 months: 0.50 +/- 0.44 [P = 0.173]). Three (13.6%) of 22 eyes with baseline metamorphopsia had complete metamorphopsia resolution. At 12 months, the M-CHARTS score was correlated with baseline foveal thickness (r = 0.373, P = 0.035) and the baseline M-CHARTS score (r = 0.503, P = 0.003). A multiple regression analysis revealed that only the baseline M-CHARTS score was correlated with the 12-month M-CHARTS score (beta = 0.460, P = 0.027). Conclusions Eyes with branch retinal vein occlusion often have persistent metamorphopsia, even when visual acuity and retinal morphology improve. Metamorphopsia at 12 months was correlated with metamorphopsia and foveal thickness at baseline.

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