4.6 Article

Evaluation of arteriovenous crossing sheathotomy for branch retinal vein occlusion by fluorescein videoangiography and image analysis

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 137, Issue 5, Pages 834-841

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2003.11.071

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: We quantitatively evaluated the effects of arteriovenous (AN) crossing sheathotomy on retinal circulation in patients with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) accompanied by macular edema. DESIGN: Interventional case series. METHODS: In 18 consecutive patients (18 eyes) with BRVO accompanied by macular edema who underwent AN crossing sheathotomy between August 1999 and April 2002, changes in retinal circulation after the surgery were evaluated by fluorescein videoangiography with a scanning laser ophthalmoscope and by image analysis using dye dilution technique. At a venule distal to the responsible AN crossing site and a normal venule, the circulation time (T50) from the beginning of filling to 50% filling of the peak intensity was calculated. The time difference (DeltaT50) between T50 at the point on the affected venule and that at the point on the normal venule, which represents the filling delay at the venule distal to the AN crossing site, was compared between before and early after the surgery. RESULTS: The preoperative DeltaT50 was 1.36 +/- 1.15 seconds (mean +/- SD), and the postoperative DeltaT50 was 0.72 +/- 0.77 seconds (P =.035, paired t test). In 11 of the 18 eyes, DeltaT50 decreased by 20% or more after the surgery. In the other 7 eyes, DeltaT50 was unchanged or slightly increased after the surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Although a randomized controlled study is needed to confirm the effectiveness of A/V crossing sheathotomy on visual function, this technique could be effective for improving the delay in perfusion in the affected venule.

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