4.6 Article

Subfoveal Choroidal Blood Flow and Central Retinal Function in Retinitis Pigmentosa

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 52, 期 2, 页码 1064-1069

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.10-5964

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio in Bologna, Italy
  2. Ministero della Ricerca, Fondi di Ateneo

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To determine whether subfoveal choroidal blood flow is altered in retinitis pigmentosa (RP) and whether this alteration is associated with central cone-mediated dysfunction. METHODS. In 31 RP patients (age range, 15-72 years) with preserved visual acuity (range: 20/30-20/20), subfoveal choroidal blood flow was measured by real-time, confocal laser Doppler flowmetry, and focal macular (18 degrees) electroretinograms (FERGs) were elicited by 41 Hz flickering stimuli. Twenty normal subjects served as controls. The following average blood flow parameters were determined based on three 60-second recordings: volume (ChBVol), velocity (ChBVel), and flow (ChBF), the last being proportional to blood flow if the hematocrit remains constant. The amplitude and phase of the FERG first harmonic component were measured. RESULTS. On average, ChBF and ChBVel were reduced by 26% (P <= 0.02) in RP patients compared to controls, whereas ChBVol was similar in the two groups. FERG amplitudes were reduced by 60% (P < 0.01) in patients compared with controls. FERG phases of patients tended to be delayed (P < 0.08) compared with their values in the controls. In patients, FERG phase delays were correlated (r = 0.50, P < 0.01) with ChBF and ChBVel values. FERG amplitudes were correlated (r = 0.49, P < 0.01) with ChBVol values. CONCLUSIONS. These data indicate significant alterations of subfoveal choroidal hemodynamic in RP and suggest a link between the alteration of ChBF and the RP-associated central cone-mediated dysfunction as assessed by the FERG. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011; 52:1064-1069) DOI:10.1167/iovs.10-5964

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