Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2022
The Fovea-Protective Impact of Double-Layer Sign in Eyes With Foveal-Sparing Geographic Atrophy and Age-Related Macular Degeneration.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Fukuyama Hisashi, Huang Bonnie Bertha, BouGhanem Ghazi, Fawzi Amani A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of double-layer sign (DLS) on geographic atrophy (GA) progression in eyes with foveal-sparing GA and age-related macular degeneration (AMD).
METHODS: This is a retrospective, consecutive case series of eyes with foveal-sparing GA secondary to AMD with more than 6 months of follow-up. The size of the foveal-sparing area was measured on the fundus autofluorescence images at the first and last visits. Each eye was evaluated for the presence or absence of DLS inside the foveal-sparing area. We graded eyes based on the presence of DLS within the foveal-sparing area and compared the progression of GA between two groups (DLS (+) versus DLS (-)).
RESULTS: We identified 25 eyes with foveal-sparing GA with at least 2 follow-up visits (average interval = 22.7 ± 11.8 months between visits). The mean foveal sparing area was 1.74 ± 0.87 mm2 (range = 0.42-4.14 mm2) at baseline and 1.26 ± 0.75 mm2 (range = 0.25-2.92 mm2) at the last visit. Seventeen eyes (65.3%) were graded as DLS (+) within the foveal-sparing area. Square root progression of GA toward the fovea was significantly faster in the DLS (-) eyes (0.149 ± 0.078 mm/year) compared to the DLS (+) group (0.088 ± 0.052 mm/year; P = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: The DLS (-) group showed significantly faster centripetal GA progression than the DLS (+) group. Our data suggest that the presence of DLS in the spared foveal area could be a protective factor against foveal progression of GA in eyes with AMD.
METHODS: This is a retrospective, consecutive case series of eyes with foveal-sparing GA secondary to AMD with more than 6 months of follow-up. The size of the foveal-sparing area was measured on the fundus autofluorescence images at the first and last visits. Each eye was evaluated for the presence or absence of DLS inside the foveal-sparing area. We graded eyes based on the presence of DLS within the foveal-sparing area and compared the progression of GA between two groups (DLS (+) versus DLS (-)).
RESULTS: We identified 25 eyes with foveal-sparing GA with at least 2 follow-up visits (average interval = 22.7 ± 11.8 months between visits). The mean foveal sparing area was 1.74 ± 0.87 mm2 (range = 0.42-4.14 mm2) at baseline and 1.26 ± 0.75 mm2 (range = 0.25-2.92 mm2) at the last visit. Seventeen eyes (65.3%) were graded as DLS (+) within the foveal-sparing area. Square root progression of GA toward the fovea was significantly faster in the DLS (-) eyes (0.149 ± 0.078 mm/year) compared to the DLS (+) group (0.088 ± 0.052 mm/year; P = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: The DLS (-) group showed significantly faster centripetal GA progression than the DLS (+) group. Our data suggest that the presence of DLS in the spared foveal area could be a protective factor against foveal progression of GA in eyes with AMD.