4.6 Article

Evaluation of Progressive Visual Dysfunction and Retinal Degeneration in Patients With Parkinson's Disease

期刊

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.16-20460

关键词

Parkinson's disease; optical coherence tomography; retinal nerve fiber layer; progression; visual dysfunction

资金

  1. public institution Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain [PI1401499]
  2. Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain (Rio Hortega program) [CM14/00026]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To quantify changes in visual function parameters and in the retinal nerve fiber layer and macular thickness over a 5-year period in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). METHODS. Thirty patients with PD and 30 healthy subjects underwent a complete ophthalmic evaluation, including assessment of visual acuity, contrast sensitivity vision, color vision, and retinal evaluation with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). All subjects were reevaluated after 5 years to quantify changes in visual function parameters, the retinal nerve fiber layer, and macular thickness. Association between progressive ophthalmologic changes and disease progression was analyzed. RESULTS. Changes were detected in visual function parameters and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in patients compared with controls. Greater changes were found during the followup in the PD group than healthy subjects in visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, Lanthony color test (P < 0.016), in superotemporal and temporal retinal nerve fiber layer sectors (P < 0.001), and in macular thickness (all sectors except inner superior and inner inferior sectors, P < 0.001). Progressive changes in the retinal nerve fiber layer were associated with disease progression (r = 0.389, P = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS. Progressive visual dysfunction, macular thinning, and axonal loss can be detected in PD. Analysis of the macular thickness and the retinal nerve fiber layer by SD-OCT can be useful for evaluating Parkinson's disease progression.

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