Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2024
CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS, TREATMENT MODALITIES, AND THEIR ASSOCIATION WITH LONG-TERM VISUAL OUTCOMES IN UVEAL EFFUSION SYNDROME.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Choi Eun Young, Lee Seung Min, Chun Jinsuk, Choi Young Je, Kim Min
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Uveal effusion syndrome (UES) is a rare eye condition characterized by fluid accumulation in the uveal layer. We investigated its clinical characteristics and treatment modalities and their association with long-term visual outcomes.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with UES treated at two tertiary hospitals between November 2005 and June 2023. Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes by modality were compared between nanophthalmic Type 1 UES (UES-1) and non-nanophthalmic Type 2 UES (UES-2), and between initial and final visits. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with vision loss.
RESULTS: Twenty-three eyes were included (UES-1, n = 10; UES-2, n = 13). Retinal pigment epithelium mottling was significantly more common in UES-1 than in UES-2 ( P = 0.043); no other between-group differences were observed. Post-treatment, in UES-1, best-corrected visual acuity ( P = 0.028) and central macular thickness ( P = 0.046) significantly decreased; in UES-2, best-corrected visual acuity significantly improved ( P = 0.021), and subfoveal choroidal thickness ( P = 0.048), central subretinal fluid height ( P = 0.011), and central macular thickness ( P = 0.010) significantly decreased. UES-2 was associated with a lower risk of vision loss (odds ratio, 0.024; P = 0.044). No other associated factors were identified.
CONCLUSION: The UES type was the sole independent prognostic factor for vision loss, whereas treatment modalities had no significant impact on visual outcomes.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with UES treated at two tertiary hospitals between November 2005 and June 2023. Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes by modality were compared between nanophthalmic Type 1 UES (UES-1) and non-nanophthalmic Type 2 UES (UES-2), and between initial and final visits. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with vision loss.
RESULTS: Twenty-three eyes were included (UES-1, n = 10; UES-2, n = 13). Retinal pigment epithelium mottling was significantly more common in UES-1 than in UES-2 ( P = 0.043); no other between-group differences were observed. Post-treatment, in UES-1, best-corrected visual acuity ( P = 0.028) and central macular thickness ( P = 0.046) significantly decreased; in UES-2, best-corrected visual acuity significantly improved ( P = 0.021), and subfoveal choroidal thickness ( P = 0.048), central subretinal fluid height ( P = 0.011), and central macular thickness ( P = 0.010) significantly decreased. UES-2 was associated with a lower risk of vision loss (odds ratio, 0.024; P = 0.044). No other associated factors were identified.
CONCLUSION: The UES type was the sole independent prognostic factor for vision loss, whereas treatment modalities had no significant impact on visual outcomes.