4.6 Article

Retinal sensitivity measured with the Micro Perimeter 1 after resolution of central serous chorioretinopathy

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 146, Issue 1, Pages 77-84

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2008.02.016

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To examine retinal sensitivity in the macular area of eyes with resolved central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC). DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: We studied retrospectively the medical records of 21 patients (21 eyes) with resolved CSC. Using spectral,domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT), 6 X 6 mm areas of macula were examined with 256 sequential horizontal scans. Microperimetry in the macular area was performed with the Micro Perimeter 1 (Nidek, Vigonza, Italy). Seventy,two measurement points were located within the central 10 degrees of the macula. RESULTS: In eyes with resolved CSC, most OCT images showed a physiologically normal appearance. However, irregularities of the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) were detected in I I eyes, and focal defects of the junctions between inner and outer segments (IS/OS) of the photoreceptors were noted in 15 eyes. These abnormalities often were seen within the foveal region. At 983 (79.8%) of 1,232 points with intact retina, retinal sensitivity was 16 decibels (dB) or better. However, a retinal sensitivity of 16 dB or better was obtained at 34.0% of points with irregular RPE and in 20.0% of points with defects of the IS/OS. The mean retinal sensitivities within the area with irregular RPE (13.4 +/- 4.8 dB) or with defects of the IS/OS (11.5 +/- 4.2 dB) were significantly lower than that of intact retina (17.5 +/- 2.4 dB; P <.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Eyes with resolved CSC often show focal areas with reduced retinal function, which are consistent with irregularity of the RPE or with defects of the IS/OS.

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