4.6 Article

Appearance of Far Peripheral Retina in Normal Eyes by Ultra-widefield Fluorescein Angiography

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 173, 期 -, 页码 84-90

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2016.09.024

关键词

-

资金

  1. NATIONAL KEY BASIC RESEARCH PROGRAM OF China (973 Program, Beijing, China) [2013CB967000]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China (Beijing, China) [81371020]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To characterize the appearance of the far peripheral retina of normal eyes using ultra-widefield fluorescein angiography (UWFA). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: This study enrolled 101 eyes with best corrected visual acuity >= 20/20, with refractive error <3.00 diopters, and without visible retinal pathologic changes under a slit lamp based condensing lens. The far peripheral retina was detected by UWFA. Ciliary body thickness (CBT) at 3 mm (CBT1) and 2 mm (CBT2) posterior to the scleral spur was measured by ultrasound biomicroscopy. RESULTS: In the far peripheral retina, granular background fluorescence (GB) appeared in all eyes (100%), a mottled fluorescent band (MB) appeared in 44 eyes (43.6%), and retinal vascular leakage (VL) appeared in 20 eyes (19.8%). According to peripheral angiographic findings, the eyes were allocated into 3 groups: Group 1 (MB- and VL-), Group 2 (MB+ and VL), and Group 3 (MB-/+ and VL+). Ultrasound biomicroscopy showed ciliary body edema and exudates in Group 3. The mean CBT1 (mm) and CBT2 (mm) of Group 3 were greater than those of Group 1 and Group 2 (0.315 +/- 0.037 vs 0.240 +/- 0.019 vs 0.251 +/- 0.030; 0.571 +/- 0.084 vs 0.375 +/- 0.051 vs 0.410 +/- 0.050, P < .001 for both CBT1 and CBT2). The mean CBT1 and CBT2 showed no difference between Group 1 and Group 2 (P = .575 for CBT1; P = .150 for CBT2). CONCLUSIONS: Normal peripheral retinas generally show granular background fluorescence, with or without a mottled fluorescent band. (C) 2016 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