June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
Comparison of spectral domain optical coherence tomography images in cone rod dystrophy and rod cone dystrophy
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Akio Oishi
    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
  • Ken Ogino
    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
  • Yukiko Makiyama
    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
  • Masafumi Kurimoto
    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
  • Maho Oishi
    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
  • Norimoto Gotoh
    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
  • Nagahisa Yoshimura
    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Akio Oishi, None; Ken Ogino, None; Yukiko Makiyama, None; Masafumi Kurimoto, None; Maho Oishi, None; Norimoto Gotoh, None; Nagahisa Yoshimura, Canon (C), Canon (F), Nidek (C), Topcon (F), PCT/JP2011/073160 (P)
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 657. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Akio Oishi, Ken Ogino, Yukiko Makiyama, Masafumi Kurimoto, Maho Oishi, Norimoto Gotoh, Nagahisa Yoshimura; Comparison of spectral domain optical coherence tomography images in cone rod dystrophy and rod cone dystrophy. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):657. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: To compare the pathologic changes in eyes with cone rod dystrophy (CRD) and rod cone dystrophy using spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SDOCT).

Methods: We investigated 35 eyes of 35 patients with CRD. As a control, we included visual acuity-matched patients with rod cone dystrophy. Visual acuity, mean deviation measured with Humphrey perimeter, amplitude of rod-, combine-, cone-, and flicker- ERG, and central retinal thickness was compared between the groups. The SDOCT findings including the presence or the absence of external limiting membrane (ELM), inner segment / outer segment junction (IS/OS), or cone outer segment tips (COST) was judged and compared.

Results: Patients with CRD were younger than visual acuity-matched patients with rod cone dystrophy (51.7 ± 14.6 vs 60.2 ± 10.7 year old, P = 0.01) and showed preserved amplitude in ERG (P < 0.001 in all components). COST was less frequently observed in CRD compared to rod cone dystrophy (0 cases (0 %) vs 7 cases (20 %), P=0.011). In addition, SDOCT revealed subretinal hyporeflective space more frequently in CRD (9 cases (25.7 %) vs 2 cases (5.7%) P = 0.045).

Conclusions: The difference of SDOCT findings between CRD and rod cone dystrophy was most prominent in the presence or absence of COST. In addition, subretinal hyporeflective space was more frequently observed in eyes with CRD. The findings should reflect the pathologic process of cone dominant degeneration in the disease.

Keywords: 696 retinal degenerations: hereditary • 550 imaging/image analysis: clinical  
×
×

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.

×