Osaka city medical journal · 2009
Comparison of fundus autofluorescence of age-related macular degeneration between a fundus camera and a confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Yamamoto Manabu, Kohno Takeya, Shiraki Kunihiko
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Fundus autofluorescence (FAF) has been examined using two devices, which were the conventional confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope and the improved fundus camera. We examined the comparison of fundus autofluorescence (FAF) from a fundus camera (FC) and a confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope (cSLO) in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD).
METHODS: Two hundreds ninety-two eyes of 202 AMD patients were examined for FAF. FAF images were captured with a FC and a cSLO system, and were compared for serous retinal detachment lesion (SRD), subretinal fibrovascular tissue lesion (FVM), pigment epithelial detachment lesion (PED), geographic atrophy lesion (GA), macular aria, and choroidal vessels.
RESULTS: Clear FAF images were obtained using both instruments in 212 eyes of 147 patients (72.6%). Correlations of FAF findings between the 2 systems existed for SRD, FVM, and GA, but not for PED. The FAF accordance rates between the 2 systems were 61.1% at SRD, 68.4% at FVM, 35% at PED, and 83.4% at GA; and GA had a significantly higher accordance ratio than other lesions. FAF images with the cSLO tended to hypoautofluorescence compared to those with a FC, except at GA. Maculas without any abnormal lesion of 41 eyes apparently hypoautofluorescence more with the cSLO than the FC. Some choroidal vessels autofluoresced in 21 eyes only with the FC.
CONCLUSIONS: FAF examination differed between the two systems. To compare two FAF images may be useful for identifying pathogonomonic fundus changes undetectable by only either FAF examination.
METHODS: Two hundreds ninety-two eyes of 202 AMD patients were examined for FAF. FAF images were captured with a FC and a cSLO system, and were compared for serous retinal detachment lesion (SRD), subretinal fibrovascular tissue lesion (FVM), pigment epithelial detachment lesion (PED), geographic atrophy lesion (GA), macular aria, and choroidal vessels.
RESULTS: Clear FAF images were obtained using both instruments in 212 eyes of 147 patients (72.6%). Correlations of FAF findings between the 2 systems existed for SRD, FVM, and GA, but not for PED. The FAF accordance rates between the 2 systems were 61.1% at SRD, 68.4% at FVM, 35% at PED, and 83.4% at GA; and GA had a significantly higher accordance ratio than other lesions. FAF images with the cSLO tended to hypoautofluorescence compared to those with a FC, except at GA. Maculas without any abnormal lesion of 41 eyes apparently hypoautofluorescence more with the cSLO than the FC. Some choroidal vessels autofluoresced in 21 eyes only with the FC.
CONCLUSIONS: FAF examination differed between the two systems. To compare two FAF images may be useful for identifying pathogonomonic fundus changes undetectable by only either FAF examination.