4.4 Article

STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS IN CARRIERS OF X-LINKED RETINITIS PIGMENTOSA WITH A TAPETAL-LIKE REFLEX

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181dde629

关键词

X-linked retinitis pigmentosa; tapetal-like reflex; microperimetry; fundus autofluorescence; spectral domain OCT

资金

  1. Foundation Fighting Blindness, Owings Mills, MD
  2. Grant Healthcare Foundation, Lake Forest, IL
  3. National Institutes of Health [EYO1792]
  4. Research to Prevent Blindness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify the functional and structural characteristics in three female obligate carriers of X-linked retinitis pigmentosa from the same family by using spectral domain optical coherence tomography, fundus autofluorescence, and microperimetry. Methods: Three female obligate carriers with a tapetal-like reflex, 21, 49, and 57 years of age, from a single family of X-linked retinitis pigmentosa that was seen in the ophthalmology department at the University of Illinois at Chicago, were enrolled in the study. All carriers underwent a complete ophthalmic examination. Spectral domain optical coherence tomography measurements, a macular microperimetry examination, and fundus autofluorescence testing were performed. Results: The spectral domain optical coherence tomography examination in all three carriers showed a normal retinal microstructure and thickness. Microperimeter testing showed subnormal retinal sensitivity in the areas of the tapetal-like reflex. Fundus autofluorescence examination showed the presence of speckled areas of enhanced autofluorescence. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that the carriers of X-linked retinitis pigmentosa with a tapetal-like reflex can show an enhanced reflectance on infrared images, abnormal autofluorescence properties, elevated retinal thresholds, and a normal retinal morphology within the posterior pole on spectral domain optical coherence tomography testing. RETINA 30:1726-1733, 2010

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