4.6 Article

The time of resolution and the rate of recurrence in acute central serous chorioretinopathy following spontaneous resolution and low-fluence photodynamic therapy: a case-control study

Journal

EYE
Volume 30, Issue 7, Pages 1005-1010

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2016.79

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To evaluate the resolution time and the recurrence rate of acute central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC) after spontaneous resolution and low-fluence photodynamic therapy (PDT). Methods Case-control study: The CSC patients who were admitted to our clinic for the first time were included. No treatment was given during the first 6 months. Patients were treated with PDT after 6 months from the initial signs of the disease, if they did not show any sign of resolution. The patients who showed a significant decrease in subretinal fluid after month 6 were not scheduled for PDT. The primary outcomes were the resolution time and the recurrence rate after the first episode. Secondary outcome measures were the change in BCVA and CRT during the follow up. Results A total of 77 consecutive eyes of 77 patients were included, 41 eyes (53.2%) with spontaneously resolved CSC and 36 eyes (46.8%) with PDT-treated CSC. The initial resolution time was 4.1 +/- 3.2 months in spontaneous resolution group, and 8.1 +/- 0.8 months in PDT group, respectively (P < 0.001). The recurrence rate was 51.2% in spontaneous resolution group, and 25% in PDT group (P = 0.01). The change in BCVA from baseline to the last follow-up visit was statistically significant in both groups (P = 0.002, P = 0.003, respectively). The change in CRT from baseline to the last follow up was also statistically significant in both groups (P = 0.002, P = 0.003, respectively). Conclusions The recurrence rate of acute CSC was lower in PDT-treated patients than the spontaneously resolved patients.

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