4.4 Article

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRESENCE OF FOVEAL BULGE IN OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHIC IMAGES AND VISUAL ACUITY AFTER RHEGMATOGENOUS RETINAL DETACHMENT REPAIR

Journal

RETINA-THE JOURNAL OF RETINAL AND VITREOUS DISEASES
Volume 34, Issue 9, Pages 1848-1853

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000000160

Keywords

rhegmatogenous retinal detachment; optical coherence tomography; visual acuity; foveal bulge; photoreceptor outer segment length; photoreceptor damage; retinal thickness

Categories

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24592637] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To determine whether a significant correlation exists between the presence of a bulge in the photoreceptor inner segment/outer segment line and the best-corrected visual acuity in eyes after successful rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair. Methods: Patients who had undergone successful RRD repair and had an intact inner segment/outer segment line at the central fovea in the spectral-domain optical coherence tomographic images were retrospectively studied. Thirty-five eyes of 35 patients were evaluated, and the eyes were classified preoperatively into those with macula-on RRD (n = 14) and those with macula-off RRD (n = 21). Examination of the spectral-domain optical coherence tomographic images of normal eyes showed that the inner segment/outer segment line has a bulge at the central fovea. The 35 eyes with successful retinal reattachment were classified by the presence or absence of foveal bulge. Results: The presence of foveal bulge differed significantly between macula-on RRD (100%) and macula-off RRD group (28.6%; P < 0.0001). In the macula-off RRD group, the best-corrected visual acuity was significantly better in eyes with a foveal bulge than in eyes without a foveal bulge (P = 0.0028). Conclusion: The foveal bulge is a good marker to determine the functional properties of the fovea in eyes with successful RRD repair.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available