4.4 Article

Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion Natural History of Visual Outcome

期刊

JAMA OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 132, 期 1, 页码 13-22

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.5515

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [EY-1151]
  2. Research to Prevent Blindness Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

IMPORTANCE Understanding the natural history of visual outcome in branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) is fundamental to its management. OBJECTIVE To investigate the natural history of visual outcome in major and macular BRVO. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS Observational cohort study at a university-based referral practice from 1973 until 1999. The study comprised 216 consecutive eyes with BRVO (144 eyes with major and 72 eyes with macular BRVO) seen within 3 months of onset. INTERVENTION At first visit, all patients had a detailed ophthalmic and medical history and comprehensive ophthalmic evaluation. Ophthalmic evaluation at initial and follow-up visits included recording best-corrected visual acuity (VA) using the Snellen VA chart and visual fields with a Goldmann perimeter. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Best-corrected VA and visual field outcome on follow-up. RESULTS The median time to macular edema resolution was 21 months in those with major BRVO and 18 months in those with macular BRVO. Overall, for eyes with initial VA of 20/60 or better, VA improved or remained stable in 75% (95% Cl, 63%-86%) for major BRVO and 86% (95% Cl, 73%-95%) for macular BRVO. In those with initial VA of 20/70 or worse, VA improved in 69% (95% Cl, 56%-80%) for major BRVO and in 53% (95% Cl, 27%-79%) for macular BRVO, with median final VA of 20/60 for both BRVO types. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Major and macular BRVOs are 2 distinct clinical entities, and initial visual status and final visual outcome in the 2 types are quite different. Overall, on resolution of macular edema, our study suggests that in both major and macular BRVO, VA and visual fields improved to a variable degree in the majority of eyes without any treatment.

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