4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Central serous chorioretinopathy in elderly subjects: angiographic and tomographic characteristics

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00417-018-4201-8

Keywords

Central serous chorioretinopathy; Fluorescein angiography; Indocyanine green angiography; Imaging; Optical coherence tomography; Pachychoroid; Photo dynamic therapy; Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy

Categories

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning [NRF-2017R1D1A1B03034695]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PurposeTo investigate the angiographic, tomographic, and clinical characteristics of idiopathic central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC) in elderly patients.MethodsThe patients were divided into two groups according to a cutoff age of 60years at baseline. Patients underwent spectral domain optical coherence tomography, fluorescein angiography, and indocyanine green angiography. Angiographic and tomographic features were compared between the two groups (young vs. elderly group).ResultsOf 176 patients, 26 patients (15.1%) were 60years or older. Complete resolution of subretinal fluid after treatment was noted in 72.0% of the elderly group and 90.8% of the young group (P=0.021). The elderly group showed worse baseline and final vision, more bilateral involvement, and lower male preponderance than the young group (P<0.05, respectively). The elderly group was also associated with a higher frequency of retinal pigment epithelium depigmentation, foveal thinning, and double-layer sign compared with the young group (P<0.05, respectively).ConclusionCSC in elderly patients was associated with a lower resolution of serous detachment, increased impairment of retinal pigment epithelial layers, foveal thinning, and worse visual outcome, suggesting a chronic insult to the choroidal vessels involving more severe damage to the outer retinal layers.

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