4.4 Article

EVALUATION OF RETINAL VESSEL DIAMETERS IN EYES WITH ACTIVE CENTRAL SEROUS CHORIORETINOPATHY

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000002932

关键词

central serous chorioretinopathy; optical coherence tomography; pathogenesis; retinal vessel diameters

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study compared retinal vessel diameters between healthy eyes and eyes with active CSC, finding significantly thicker venous walls and narrower inner diameters in active CSC eyes. Additionally, the mean venous outer diameter was wider in CSC eyes, albeit not significantly.
Purpose: To compare the retinal vessel diameters of healthy eyes and active central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC) eyes, and to evaluate possible effect of retinal vessel diameter alterations on the pathogenesis of CSC. Methods: This retrospective study included 39 patients with CSC and 34 healthy individuals. Spectralis optical coherence tomography + HRA with an infrared reflectance image were used to evaluate structure of retinal vessels in the circular region around the optic disc. For each eye, vertical inner and outer diameters of the four major arteries and veins were measured using infrared reflectance images, and vessel wall thicknesses were also calculated based on inner and outer diameters. Results: The 304 vessels of the 39 active CSC eyes and 266 vessels of the 34 healthy eyes were used in the analyses. The mean venous wall thickness in active CSC eyes was significantly thicker than that in healthy eyes (40.0 +/- 4.9 vs. 33.5 +/- 4.1 mu m, P = 0.001), whereas the mean venous inner diameter in active CSC eyes was significantly narrower (52.5 +/- 9.7 vs. 61.3 +/- 8.1 mu m, P = 0.001). Also, the mean venous outer diameter was wider in CSC eyes, albeit not significantly (131.1 +/- 7.0 vs. 128.5 +/- 8.4 mu m, P = 0.074). Conclusion: Our results suggest that the alterations of retinal venous diameters may play a potential role in the pathogenesis of CSC in addition to alterations in choroidal thickness.

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