4.4 Article

IMPROVEMENT IN VISUAL ACUITY AND CONTRAST SENSITIVITY IN PATIENTS WITH CENTRAL SEROUS CHORIORETINOPATHY AFTER MACULAR SUBTHRESHOLD LASER THERAPY

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3182670fa3

关键词

central serous chorioretinopathy; subthreshold laser therapy; contrast sensitivity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to measure the improvement in vision and contrast sensitivity in patients with central serous chorioretinopathy after macular subthreshold laser therapy. Methods: Cases included in this clinical trial were patients diagnosed with acute central serous chorioretinopathy less than 1 month in duration. Each patient was randomized to either observation group or treatment group with subthreshold argon laser. First and sixth month of follow-up results were then recorded, and visual improvement and contrast sensitivity were compared between the two groups. Results: Of 37 patients with central serous chorioretinopathy, 25 were men and 12 were women with a mean age of 38.6 +/- 5.9 years. At 6 months, mean best-corrected visual acuity improved from 0.26 to 0.03 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution in the laser group and from 0.12 to 0.04 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution in the observation group (P < 0.001). Except spatial frequencies of 18 cycles per degree (P = 0.207), the contrast sensitivity in spatial frequencies of 3, 6, and 12 cycles per degree was significantly more favorable in the laser group during the first and sixth month. Conclusion: Treatment of patients with acute central serous chorioretinopathy with subthreshold laser improved the best-corrected visual acuity and contrast sensitivity compared with those in the observation group. The laser group also showed a more rapid improvement. In both groups, best-corrected visual acuity improved in most patients after 6 months; however, the contrast sensitivity was significantly better in the treatment group. RETINA 33:324-328, 2013

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