4.4 Article

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREOPERATIVE FOVEAL MICROSTRUCTURE AND VISUAL ACUITY IN MACULA-OFF RHEGMATOGENOUS RETINAL DETACHMENT Imaging Analysis by Swept Source Optical Coherence Tomography

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000002687

关键词

ellipsoid zone; external limiting membrane; foveal microstructure; rhegmatogenous retinal detachment; swept source optical coherence tomography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To visualize foveal microstructures in macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment using swept source optical coherence tomography preoperatively and postoperatively and to investigate the relationship between foveal microstructures and postoperative visual acuity. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 42 eyes of 42 consecutive patients diagnosed with macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment who underwent anatomically successful repair surgery and were followed up for 6 months. We used swept source optical coherence tomography to investigate the relationship between preoperative and postoperative continuity of both the external limiting membrane (ELM) and ellipsoid zone (Ez) and preoperative and postoperative best-corrected visual acuity. Results: Both preoperative ELM and Ez were continuous in 9 eyes (21%; ELM+/Ez+ eyes), only the ELM was continuous in 25 eyes (60%; ELM+/Ez- eyes), and neither was continuous in 8 eyes (19%; ELM-/Ez- eyes). Postoperative best-corrected visual acuity in ELM+/Ez+ eyes (-0.05 +/- 0.04 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution units, Snellen equivalent 20/18) was significantly better than that in both ELM+/Ez- (0.16 +/- 0.16, 20/29;P= 0.03) and ELM-/Ez- (0.86 +/- 0.37, 20/145;P< 0.001) eyes. Postoperative best-corrected visual acuity was significantly better in ELM+/Ez- than in ELM-/Ez- eyes (P< 0.001). Conclusion: In macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment, preoperative continuity of the ELM and Ez may be a predictor of postoperative best-corrected visual acuity.

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