4.3 Article

Pachydrusen in Indian population: A hospital-based study

Journal

INDIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 67, Issue 3, Pages 371-375

Publisher

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1173_18

Keywords

Age-related macular degeneration; fluorescein angiography; optical coherence tomography; pachydrusen; soft drusen; subretinal drusenoid deposits

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To report the prevalence of pachydrusen in Indian population and their characteristics in relation to subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT), choroidal vascularity index (CVI) in comparison to eyes with soft drusen and subretinal drusenoid deposits (SDD) in age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Methods: The study was a retrospective, cross-sectional study involving patients with a diagnosis of dry AMD in at least one eye. The diagnosis of soft drusen, SDD, and pachydrusen was made on the basis of color fundus photograph and optical coherence tomography (OCT). SFCT and CVI was calculated and compared among the different subtypes of drusen. Results: A total of 169 eyes (143 dry and 26 wet AMD) of 85 patients with a mean age of 67.67 +/- 9.57 years were included. In eyes with dry AMD, pachydrusen were seen in 12 eyes (8.4%) with a mean (+/- SD) SFCT of 289.66 +/- 91.01 mu. The difference in SFCT was statistically significant (P = 0.001) using analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. The eyes with pachydrusen had significantly thickened choroid compared to the eyes with SDD (30 eyes; 21.0%) or combination of soft drusen and SDD (29 eyes; 20.3%) but not soft drusen (72 eyes; 50.3%). The difference of CVI in different subgroups was significant (P = 0.03). One eye in wet AMD group had concurrent pachydrusen. Comparison of SFCT and CVI in wet AMD and fellow dry AMD eyes were not significant. Conclusion: In Indian eyes with dry AMD, prevalence of pachydrusen (8.4%) is slightly lower compared to western literature (11.7%) and is associated with thicker choroid and higher CVI.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available