4.4 Article

Combination photodynamic therapy and intravitreal bevacizumab used to treat circumscribed choroidal hemangioma

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE CHINESE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
卷 74, 期 10, 页码 473-477

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcma.2011.08.020

关键词

Bevacizumab; circumscribed choroidal hemagioma; exudative retinal detachment; photodynamic therapy

资金

  1. National Science Council
  2. Taipei Veterans General Hospital of Taiwan [V98C1-187, V99C1-009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Circumscribed choroidal hemagioma (CCH) is an ocular tumor that can result in decreased vision or blindness. Numerous treatment methods have been reported without satisfying results. In recent years, photodynamic therapy (PDT) with verteporfin has been used to treat choroidal hemagioma and resolve the associated exudative retinal detachment, and the results have been inspiring. Here, we report the case of a 36-year-old man with longstanding CCH who suffered from blurred vision for 3 years. He underwent PDT with intravenous infusions of verteporfin, which was a treatment method based on a modified version of the standard macular degeneration PDT protocol, in addition to subsequent intravitreal administrations of bevacizumab as adjuvant therapy for macular edema. Twelve months after treatment, the CCH tumor remained noticeably shrunken, with the complete absorption of the subretinal fluid and the absence of macular edema. In terms of treating subretinal fluid retention, this combination treatment is a safe, effective, and long-lasting therapy for treating established CCH tumors. However, even though the patient's visual field defects improved, the patient's visual acuity remained stable at 6/60 without further improvement. Long-term CCH with prolonged macular edema might have affected the visual prognosis. Patients with CCH still require long-term follow-up examinations after receiving PDT treatments. Copyright (C) 2011 Elsevier Taiwan LLC and the Chinese Medical Association. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据