4.7 Article

Progression of retinal ganglion cell loss in multiple sclerosis is associated with new lesions in the optic radiations

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 24, 期 11, 页码 1392-1398

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ene.13404

关键词

magnetic resonance imaging; multiple sclerosis; optical coherence tomography; retinal ganglion cell; retinal nerve fiber layer

资金

  1. National Multiple Sclerosis Society (NMSS)
  2. Novartis Save Neuron Grant
  3. Sydney Eye Hospital foundation grant
  4. Sydney Medical School Foundation
  5. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purposeThe mechanism of retinal ganglion cell and retinal nerve fiber layer loss in multiple sclerosis (MS) remains unknown. This study aimed to investigate the association between temporal retinal nerve fiber layer (tRNFL) thinning and disease activity in the brain determined by T2 lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MethodsFifty-five consecutive patients with relapsing-remitting MS and 25 controls were enrolled. All patients underwent annual optical coherence tomography and high-resolution MRI scans for tRNFL thickness and brain lesion volume analysis, respectively. ResultsSignificant tRNFL thickness reduction was observed over the 3-year follow-up period at a relatively constant rate (1.02 m/year). Thinning of tRNFL fibers was more prominent in younger patients (P = 0.01). The tRNFL loss was associated with new MRI lesions in the optic radiations (ORs). There was significantly greater tRNFL thinning in patients with new lesional activity in the ORs compared with patients with new lesions outside the ORs (P = 0.009). ConclusionsThis study supports the notion that retrograde transneuronal degeneration caused by OR lesions might play a role in progressive retinal nerve fiber layer loss. In addition, the results of the study also indicate that the disease-related neurodegenerative changes in the retina start much earlier than the clinical diagnosis of MS.

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

4.7
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