4.4 Article

OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY PREDICTS VISUAL OUTCOME IN ACUTE CENTRAL RETINAL VEIN OCCLUSION

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000000054

关键词

acute ischemic retinopathy; central retinal vein occlusion; optical coherence tomography; prominent middle limiting membrane; outer plexiform layer; retinal ischemia

资金

  1. Conversing Research Center Program - Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [2012K001354]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To investigate the clinical features of central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) in relation to the presence of a prominent middle limiting membrane (p-MLM) sign on presenting optical coherence tomography, which may suggest macular ischemia and poor visual outcome. Methods: Fifty consecutive eyes with acute CRVO of,1 month of symptom duration before presentation were retrospectively reviewed. A hyperreflective line located in the outer plexiform layer (p-MLM) in optical coherence tomography was used as a sign of acute ischemia. Cases with p-MLM were grouped and compared with the group of eyes with no p-MLM sign (non-MLM group) for clinical features including visual acuities, central fovea thickness, and CRVO types. Results: Among the 50 eyes, 14 (28%) eyes showed a p-MLM sign, 21 (42%) eyes did not, and others had equivocal findings. Eyes with p-MLM sign presented worse initial and final best-corrected visual acuity compared with the non-MLM group (1.10 +/- 0.72 vs. 0.47 +/- 0.49 logMAR in the initial best-corrected visual acuity, P = 0.007; and 1.08 +/- 0.86 vs. 0.32 +/- 0.41 logMAR in the final best-corrected visual acuity, P = 0.044) in patients with a follow-up duration of 6 months or longer. The p-MLM group eyes showed a higher tendency toward being classified as ischemic type CRVO (57.1 vs. 4.8%, P = 0.001). Conclusion: Central retinal vein occlusion showing p-MLM on optical coherence tomography had worse visual outcome with higher incidence of being classified into ischemic type CRVO.

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