Purchase this article with an account.
Sufian Elfandi, Sotaro Ooto, Naoko Ueda-Arakawa, Ayako Takahashi, Hideo Nakanishi, Hiroshi Tamura, Akio Oishi, Kenji Yamashiro, Nagahisa Yoshimura; Pseudodrusen Subtype Using Multimodal Imaging. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2015;56(7 ):3960.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To determine a useful way to detect psuedodrusen subtypes using multiple imaging modalities.
One hundred and forty four eyes of 95 patients with pseudodrusen associated with age related macular degeneration underwent color fundus photography , infrared reflectance (IR), confocal blue reflectance (CBR), fundus autofluorescence(FAF), and indocyanine green angiography (IA). Pseudodrusen subtypes (dot, ribbon, midperipheral) were determined using each imaging in all eyes.
All eyes were diagnosed as having dot psuedodrusen , and 49 eyes (34.0%) as ribbon psuedodrusen using at least one imaging modality. Ninety five eyes (66.0%) had only dot pseudodrusen, and no eye had ribbon psuedodrusen only. No eye had midperipheral subtype. Forty two of 49 bilateral cases (85.7%) had the same subtype in both eyes. Using fundus photography, dot type was detected in 123 eyes (85.4%) and ribbon type was detected in 48 eyes (97.9%). Using IR, dot type was detected in 142 eyes (98.6%) and ribbon type was detected only in 2 eyes (4.1%). Using CBR, dot type was detected in 138 eyes (95.8%) and ribbon type was detected in 46 eyes (93.8%). Using FAF, dot type was detected in 140 eyes (97.2%) and ribbon type was detected in 43 eyes (87.7%). Using IA, dot type was detected in 144 eyes (100%) and ribbon type was detected in 26 eyes (53.1%).
Many cases showed the same subtype in both eyes. IR, FAF, CBR, and IA are useful for detecting dot pseudodrusen, and IA is the most sensitive. Fundus photography, and CBR are useful for detecting the ribbon type, whereas IR and IA are not sensitive for detecting this subtype.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only