4.3 Article

Imageology features of different types of multifocal choroiditis

期刊

BMC OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 19, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12886-019-1045-x

关键词

Choroiditis diagnosis; Fluorescein angiography; Tomography; optical examination

资金

  1. Foundation of Medical Reserve Talents of Yunnan Province
  2. Foundation of Medical Institutions Research of Yunnan Province [2018NS0011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundMultifocal choroiditis (MFC) is multi-inflammatory lesions that occur in the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) and the choriocapillaris. Optical examinations are the major diagnostic methods to diagnose the disease. Objective: To examine patients with different types of MFC by multiple imageological methods. To summarize the imageology features of different types of MFC to make a medical examination guideline for clinician practices. Method: All of the patients who included in the study received examinations of fundus color photography, infrared fundus photography, fundus auto fluorescence (FAF), fluorescein fundus angiography (FFA), and optical coherence tomography (OCT), respectively. Finally, imageology features of different types of multifocal choroiditis were summarized. Results: A total of 51 eyes from 28 patients with diagnosed MFC were included in the study. These patients consisted of 10 males and 18 females aged from 31 to 49 (mean age: 41.50.8). 23 patients had MFC on both eye whilst 5 had monocular disease. The MFC lesions were classified as active inflammatory lesions, inactive inflammatory lesions, inflammatory lesions secondary active choroidal neovascularization (CNV) and inflammatory lesions secondary inactive CNV according to literature reports and comprehensive fundus imaging examinations. Conclusion: Examinations via fundus color photography, infrared fundus photography, FAF, FFA and OCT indicate typical imageological signals of different types of MFC. These imageology tests can greatly assist the clinicians to identify the MFC and provide proper therapies.

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

4.3
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