4.6 Article

Clinical Factors Associated with Low-Contrast Visual Acuity after Reduced-Fluence Photodynamic Therapy in Patients with Resolved Central Serous Chorioretinopathy and Good Baseline Visual Acuity

期刊

PHARMACEUTICALS
卷 14, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ph14040303

关键词

central serous chorioretinopathy; photodynamic therapy; contrast visual acuity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that low-contrast visual acuity is significantly affected after reduced-fluence photodynamic therapy in patients with resolved central serous chorioretinopathy and good baseline visual acuity. Affected eyes had significantly worse low-contrast visual acuity compared to fellow eyes, and symptom duration may play a role in affecting low-contrast visual acuity post-treatment.
This retrospective study was conducted to investigate the clinical factors associated with low-contrast visual acuity after reduced-fluence photodynamic therapy (RFPDT) in patients with resolved central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC) and good baseline visual acuity. A total of 45 eyes of 45 patients with resolved CSC at post-RFPDT and best-corrected visual acuity of >1.0 (logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution [logMAR], 0) at baseline were examined. Visual acuities of both eyes were measured at four contrast levels (100%, 25%, 12%, and 6%) at post-RFPDT. The low-contrast visual acuity (6%, 12%, and 25%) was significantly lower than the 100% contrast visual acuity in the affected eyes. Visual acuities of affected eyes were significantly worse than those of fellow eyes at any contrast levels. The degree of changes in 6% and 100% contrast visual acuities was significantly greater in affected eyes than that in fellow eyes (p < 0.05). The 6% contrast visual acuities in affected eyes at post-RFPDT were significantly associated with the symptom duration (p < 0.05). Patients with a long duration of symptoms might have disturbed low-contrast visual acuities at post-RFPDT even if their baseline visual acuities were good.

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

4.6
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