4.6 Article

Significant Correlation Between Visual Acuity and Recovery of Foveal Cone Microstructures After Macular Hole Surgery

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 153, 期 1, 页码 111-119

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.05.039

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To determine whether a recovery of the microstructures of the foveal photoreceptors after macular hole closure is correlated with best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). DESIGN: Retrospective, consecutive, observational case series. METHODS: SETTING: Single-center academic practice. STUDY POPULATION: Forty-one eyes of 41 patients with surgically closed macular holes. OBSERVATIONAL PROCEDURES: The presence and intactness of the cone outer segment tips (COST) line were determined by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography and compared with the presence of the inner segment/outer segment (IS/OS) junction and the external limiting membrane (ELM) at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the macular hole surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The correlation between the integrity of the foveal photoreceptor microstructures and the BCVA. RESULTS: A distinct COST line was first seen at 6 months after the surgery. A distinct or irregular COST line was observed only in eyes with an intact IS/OS junction and ELM. Eyes with a distinct or irregular COST line had significantly better BCVA than those with a disrupted COST line in eyes with an intact IS/OS junction and ELM at 12 months (P = .030). The BCVA was >= 20/25 at 12 months in 91% of the eyes with a distinct or irregular COST line but in only 44% of the eyes without a COST line (P = .015). CONCLUSIONS: The significant correlation between the BCVA and a distinct or irregular COST line after successful macular hole surgery indicates that the recovery of foveal cone microstructure is associated with good postoperative BCVA. (Am J Ophthalmol 2012;153: 111-119. Crown Copyright (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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