May 2005
Volume 46, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2005
Additional Benefit of PDT Treatment: Comparison of the Treated to the Untreated Fellow Eye
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • A. Loewenstein
    Ophthalmology, Tel–Aviv Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel
  • M. Goldstein
    Ophthalmology, Tel–Aviv Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel
  • A. Rabinovitch
    Ophthalmology, Tel–Aviv Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel
  • I. Leibovitch
    Ophthalmology, Tel–Aviv Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  A. Loewenstein, None; M. Goldstein, None; A. Rabinovitch, None; I. Leibovitch, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2005, Vol.46, 333. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      A. Loewenstein, M. Goldstein, A. Rabinovitch, I. Leibovitch; Additional Benefit of PDT Treatment: Comparison of the Treated to the Untreated Fellow Eye . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):333.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: To determine the benefit of photodynamic therapy (PDT), by comparison of both eyes in the same patient, in cases of bilateral macular scar and severe visual deterioration. Methods: All charts of patients who underwent PDT from 3/2000 – 12/2003 were reviewed. All patients who had already a disciform scar at presentation (untreated eye) and underwent PDT in their fellow eye, were included in the study. Final visual acuity in both eyes was recorded from the charts and the final lesion size was measured from the last fluorescein angiogram and calculated in microns. 58 charts of 58 patients were included in the analysis. There were 34 females and 24 males, mean age 81.7 years. All 58 patients were interviewed regarding their visual function in each eye. Results: The final visual acuity was 20/800 in the untreated eye, compared to 20/400 in the treated eye (p<0.0001). The final neovascular complex size was 8900 microns in the untreated eye, compared to 5300 microns in the treated eye (p<0.0001). 56/58 patients declared that the treated eye is their better functioning eye. 2/58 declared no difference in visual function between both eyes. Conclusions: In patients treated by PDT in one eye only, while already having a disciform process in the fellow eye, the eye treated with PDT had a better final outcome in terms of patient satisfaction, better final visual acuity and smaller lesion size compared to the first untreated eye. This study further emphasizes the efficacy of PDT in treating neovascular AMD.

Keywords: age-related macular degeneration • photodynamic therapy • choroid: neovascularization 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×