4.1 Article

Comparison of quantitative measurement of foveal avascular zone and macular vessel density in eyes of children with amblyopia and healthy controls: an optical coherence tomography angiography study

Journal

JOURNAL OF AAPOS
Volume 21, Issue 3, Pages 224-228

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2017.05.002

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE To quantify vessel density of superficial capillary plexus (SCP), deep capillary plexus (DCP), and the foveal avascular zone (FAZ) of children's amblyopic eyes and to compare the measurements with those of companion eyes and age-matched controls. METHODS Fifteen patients with strabismic amblyopia, and 15 age-matched controls were included in this cross-sectional study. SCP, DCP, and FAZ were measured via optical coherence tomographic angiography (OCTA). RESULTS Mean subject age was 8.2 +/- 2.3 years in the amblyopia group and 8.6 +/- 2.2 years in the control group. The mean SCP at 1 mm, 2 mm, and 3 mm zones were (in the order amblyopic eye, companion eye, control) 1.399 +/- 0.088, 5.854 +/- 0.195, 12.866 +/- 0.346; 1.467 +/- 0.084, 5.979 +/- 0.182, 12.965 +/- 0.321; and 1.559 +/- 0.052, 6.343 +/- 0.190, 13.819 +/- 0.423. SCP was significantly lower in amblyopic eyes than in companion eyes and controls (P < 0.05). The mean DCP at 1 mm, 2 mm, and 3 mm zones were 1.425 +/- 0.069, 6.038 +/- 0.186, 13.522 +/- 0.336; 1.525 +/- 0.072, 6.427 +/- 0.190, 14.286 +/- 0.322; and 1.685 +/- 0.074, 6.895 +/- 0.198, 15.355 +/- 0.356. DCP was significantly lower in amblyopic eyes than companion eyes and controls (P < 0.05). The mean superficial FAZ were 0.287 +/- 0.091, 0.262 +/- 0.092, and 0.280 +/- 0.097. The mean deep FAZ were 0.382 +/- 0.092, 0.335 +/- 0.080, and 0.329 +/- 0.085. There was no significant difference in FAZ among groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Vessel density of SCP and DCP of eyes with amblyopia is lower than that of the companion eye and the age -matched controls.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available