4.6 Article

Microcystic Macular Edema Retrograde Maculopathy Caused by Optic Neuropathy

期刊

OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 121, 期 1, 页码 142-149

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.08.045

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To investigate retrograde axonal degeneration for its potential to cause microcystic macular edema (MME), a maculopathy that has been previously described in patients with demyelinating disease. To identify risk factors for MME and to expand the anatomic knowledge on MME. Design: Retrospective case series. Participants: We included 117 consecutive patients and 180 eyes with confirmed optic neuropathy of variable etiology. Patients with glaucoma were excluded. Methods: We determined age, sex, visual acuity, etiology of optic neuropathy, and the temporal and spatial characteristics of MME. Eyes with MME were compared with eyes with optic neuropathy alone and to healthy fellow eyes. With retinal layer segmentation we quantitatively measured the intraretinal anatomy. Main Outcome Measures: Demographic data, distribution of MME in the retina, and thickness of retinal layers were analyzed. Results: We found MME in 16 eyes (8.8%) from 9 patients, none of whom had multiple sclerosis or neuromyelitis optica. The MME was restricted to the inner nuclear layer (INL) and had a characteristic perifoveal circular distribution. Compared with healthy controls, MME was associated with significant thinning of the ganglion cell layer and nerve fiber layer, as well as a thickening of the INL and the deeper retinal layers. Youth is a significant risk factor for MME. Conclusions: Microcystic macular edema is not specific for demyelinating disease. It is a sign of optic neuropathy irrespective of its etiology. The distinctive intraretinal anatomy suggests that MME is caused by retrograde degeneration of the inner retinal layers, resulting in impaired fluid resorption in the macula. (C) 2014 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

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

4.6
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