Comparison between Optical Coherence Tomography and Fundus Fluorescein Angiography in the Detection of Cystoid Macular Oedema in a Tertiary Eye Care Centre in Nagpur, Maharashtra

K. A. Dhabarde, Karuna Radhakishan Painjane, A. Madan
{"title":"Comparison between Optical Coherence Tomography and Fundus Fluorescein Angiography in the Detection of Cystoid Macular Oedema in a Tertiary Eye Care Centre in Nagpur, Maharashtra","authors":"K. A. Dhabarde, Karuna Radhakishan Painjane, A. Madan","doi":"10.18410/jebmh/2021/627","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND Fundus fluorescin angiography (FFA) has been traditional gold standard for detection of cystoid macular oedema (CME) but nowadays optical coherence tomography (OCT) is used more often by to detect CME due to various conditions. Although FFA can assess CME qualitatively, OCT provides quantitative measurement of foveal thickness. The purpose of this study is to compare sensitivity of FFA and OCT for detection of CME and know the etiological distribution of CME and the ability of FFA and OCT in diagnosing CME in different aetiologies. METHODS A hospital based prospective observational diagnostic study was conducted in tertiary eye care centre in central India on 143 eyes of 103 patients. FFA and OCT findings in patients of CME diagnosed provisionally on fundus examination were studied. RESULTS Of total 103 patients studied, maximum patients 20 (19.42 %) were in age group of 55 - 59 years whereas minimum 6 (5.83 %) were in age group of 40 - 44 years. In 103 patients, 61 (59.22 %) were males and 42 (40.78 %) were females. Both eyes were involved in 41 (40.78 %) cases. Most common cause of CME was nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) 52 eyes (35.86 %), followed by branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) 32 eyes (22.06 %), then proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) 14 eyes (9.6 %), central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) 13 eyes (8.96 %). CME on OCT was seen in maximum of retinal vein occlusion patients - CRVO (84.61 %) and BRVO (84.37 %). Of 145 eyes, 114 (78.32 %) eyes had CME. CONCLUSIONS Most common cause of CME was NPDR followed by BRVO, PDR and CRVO. Sensitivity of OCT in comparison with FFA was 100 % with diagnostic accuracy of 81.38 %. Hence, one can use OCT as first modality investigation for diagnosis of CME. KEYWORDS Optical Coherence Tomography, Fundus Fluorescein Angiography, Cystoid Macular Oedema, NPDR","PeriodicalId":15779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence Based Medicine and Healthcare","volume":"331 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Evidence Based Medicine and Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18410/jebmh/2021/627","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Fundus fluorescin angiography (FFA) has been traditional gold standard for detection of cystoid macular oedema (CME) but nowadays optical coherence tomography (OCT) is used more often by to detect CME due to various conditions. Although FFA can assess CME qualitatively, OCT provides quantitative measurement of foveal thickness. The purpose of this study is to compare sensitivity of FFA and OCT for detection of CME and know the etiological distribution of CME and the ability of FFA and OCT in diagnosing CME in different aetiologies. METHODS A hospital based prospective observational diagnostic study was conducted in tertiary eye care centre in central India on 143 eyes of 103 patients. FFA and OCT findings in patients of CME diagnosed provisionally on fundus examination were studied. RESULTS Of total 103 patients studied, maximum patients 20 (19.42 %) were in age group of 55 - 59 years whereas minimum 6 (5.83 %) were in age group of 40 - 44 years. In 103 patients, 61 (59.22 %) were males and 42 (40.78 %) were females. Both eyes were involved in 41 (40.78 %) cases. Most common cause of CME was nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) 52 eyes (35.86 %), followed by branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) 32 eyes (22.06 %), then proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) 14 eyes (9.6 %), central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) 13 eyes (8.96 %). CME on OCT was seen in maximum of retinal vein occlusion patients - CRVO (84.61 %) and BRVO (84.37 %). Of 145 eyes, 114 (78.32 %) eyes had CME. CONCLUSIONS Most common cause of CME was NPDR followed by BRVO, PDR and CRVO. Sensitivity of OCT in comparison with FFA was 100 % with diagnostic accuracy of 81.38 %. Hence, one can use OCT as first modality investigation for diagnosis of CME. KEYWORDS Optical Coherence Tomography, Fundus Fluorescein Angiography, Cystoid Macular Oedema, NPDR
光学相干断层扫描和眼底荧光素血管造影在马哈拉施特拉邦那格浦尔三级眼科保健中心检测囊样黄斑水肿的比较
眼底荧光血管造影(FFA)一直是检测囊状黄斑水肿(CME)的传统金标准,但由于各种条件的限制,光学相干断层扫描(OCT)现在被更多地用于检测黄斑水肿。尽管FFA可以定性地评估CME, OCT提供定量测量中央凹厚度。本研究的目的是比较FFA和OCT检测CME的敏感性,了解CME的病因分布,以及FFA和OCT在不同病因下诊断CME的能力。方法在印度中部的三级眼科保健中心对103例患者的143只眼睛进行了一项基于医院的前瞻性观察诊断研究。研究眼底检查临时诊断的CME患者的FFA和OCT表现。结果103例患者中,55 ~ 59岁患者最多20例(19.42%),40 ~ 44岁患者最少6例(5.83%)。103例患者中,男性61例(59.22%),女性42例(40.78%)。双眼受累41例(40.78%)。以非增殖性糖尿病性视网膜病变(NPDR) 52眼(35.86%)、视网膜分支静脉阻塞(BRVO) 32眼(22.06%)、增殖性糖尿病性视网膜病变(PDR) 14眼(9.6%)、视网膜中央静脉阻塞(CRVO) 13眼(8.96%)最为常见。视网膜静脉闭塞患者OCT上可见CME最多,CRVO(84.61%)和BRVO(84.37%)。145只眼中有114只(78.32%)眼有CME。结论CME最常见的病因是NPDR,其次是BRVO、PDR和CRVO。与FFA相比,OCT的敏感性为100%,诊断准确率为81.38%。因此,可以使用OCT作为诊断CME的第一模态检查。【关键词】光学相干层析成像,眼底荧光素血管造影,囊样黄斑水肿,NPDR
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信