4.7 Article

Optical coherence tomography features of the repair tissue following RPE tear and their correlation with visual outcomes

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-85270-x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study assessed OCT features of repair tissue in neovascular age-related macular degeneration patients with RPE tear, finding that most eyes showed signs of tissue repair during follow-up. Visual outcomes were predominantly predicted by the number of injections, RPE-SHT reflectivity, and presence of SMH.
To assess the optical coherence tomography (OCT) features of the repair tissue after retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) tear in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Retrospective, observational study. Medical and imaging records of patients that developed tears after starting anti-VEGF treatment and with at least 12 months of follow-up were reviewed. OCT reflectivity of the RPE-subretinal hyperreflective tissue (SHT) complex was measured at 6, 12 and 18 months (when available). Reflectivity of the adjacent unaffected RPE-Bruch's membrane was taken as internal reference. Other variables: grade and rip occurrence (early/late); number of intravitreal injections; type of macular neovascularization; sub-macular hemorrhage (SMH) at onset. Forty-nine eyes (age: 76.1 +/- 7.0 years; VA: 0.54 +/- 0.27 LogMAR) were included. Thirty-eight eyes had OCT signs of healing during the follow-up, with 21 showing SMH at baseline. Final VA positively correlated with the number of injections and negatively correlated with the RPE-SHT reflectivity and the presence of SMH (p<0.001). Reflectivity of the RPE-SHT complex was positively associated with time and SMH at baseline (p<0.05). In our study, most eyes showed signs of tissue repair after RPE tear. The reflectivity of repair tissue, the SMH presence and the number of anti-VEGF injections appeared to be major predictors of visual outcomes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available