4.0 Article

Optica coherence tomography findings in hemodiaysis patients

期刊

KLINISCHE MONATSBLATTER FUR AUGENHEILKUNDE
卷 225, 期 8, 页码 713-717

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-963761

关键词

optical coherence tomography; retinal thickness; hemodialysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The aim of the present prospective study was to compare retinal thickness between normal healthy subjects and chronic renal failure patients treated with maintenance hemodialysis (HD) as well as to determine whether there was any correlation between age and duration of HD treatment. Patients and Methods: A total of 24 eyes of 12 HD patients and 32 eyes of 16 controls underwent optical coherence tomographic scanning (OCT) in the central disc of 6000 mu m in diameter. Results: The mean retinal thickness was measured in the inner temporal, superior, nasal and inferior quadrants. There was a highly significant difference in the inner quadrants between controls and HD patients (p < 0.005). The mean retinal thickness was also measured in all Outer quadrants. The differences between HD patients and controls were highly significant (p < 0.005). The average reduction in retinal thickness in HD patients compared to the controls in the inner quadrants was 7.9% or 22 mu m (279.0 in controls, 257.0 in HD patients) and 7.3% or 17.7 pm in the outer quadrants (244.5 in controls, 226.8 in HD patients). The average reduction in all quadrants was 7.7 % or 20.1 mu m (262 in controls, 241.9 in HD patients). The differences between HD patients and controls were highly significant in all quadrants (p<0.001). No differences in foveal thickness between controls and HD patients were found. The reduction of retinal thickness was correlated with the age of HD patients, but not with the duration of HD treatment. Conclusion: OCT revealed a significant reduction of retinal thickness in HD patients. The reduction was significant in all quadrants and was correlated to the age of HD patients. No differences in foveal retinal thickness were found.

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

4.0
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