May 2004
Volume 45, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2004
Imaging and Electrphysiology in Unexplained Visual Loss After Retinal Detachment
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • S.E. Benson
    Vitreoretinal Research,
    Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • P.G. Schlottmann
    Vitreoretinal Research,
    Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • C. Bunce
    Research and Development,
    Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • G.E. Holder
    Electrophysiology Department,
    Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • D.G. Charteris
    Vitreoretinal Research,
    Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  S.E. Benson, None; P.G. Schlottmann, None; C. Bunce, None; G.E. Holder, None; D.G. Charteris, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  none
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2004, Vol.45, 2036. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      S.E. Benson, P.G. Schlottmann, C. Bunce, G.E. Holder, D.G. Charteris; Imaging and Electrphysiology in Unexplained Visual Loss After Retinal Detachment . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):2036.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: To assess the structural and functional changes associated with poor visual outcome following successful retinal detachment repair. Methods: Patients were recruited from all Moorfields Eye Hospital vitreoretinal clinics between March and August 2003. Eligible patients had undergone anatomically successful surgery at least 3 months previously and had no identifiable cause on clinical examination for poor vision (6/18 or worse). All patients underwent Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) 3000 macular scan. Electrodiagnostic testing was performed in those patients with macula–on detachment and normal OCT. Results: 39 patients were recruited: 32 patients had macula–off detachment; 7 patients had macula–on detachment. 23 (72%) of the macula–off patients had normal OCT, 4 had cystoid macular edema, 2 had localised subfoveal fluid and 1 patient had a lamellar macular hole. None of these pathologies were evident on clinical examination. The remaining 2 patients had epiretinal membrane. Of the macula–on patients, 1 had cystoid macular edema. Another had previously undergone surgery for epiretinal membrane peel; residual membrane was visible clinically and on OCT. Five of the 7 macula–on patients had normal OCT. One of these had silicone oil in situ at the time of OCT; the remaining 4 underwent electrophysiological assessment. Three had moderate or severe macular dysfunction; in these there was peripheral retinal dysfunction of mild, mild–moderate and moderate severity. The fourth patient, with acuity loss after removal of silicone oil, had electrophysiological evidence of optic nerve dysfunction. Conclusions: Unexplained poor visual acuity following anatomically successful detachment surgery requires both structural and functional evaluation. OCT was effective at demonstrating pathology not visible on fundus examination. Electrophysiological evaluation identified the origin of the visual dysfunction in four patients without macular involvement and with normal OCT examination.

Keywords: retinal detachment • imaging methods (CT, FA, ICG, MRI, OCT, RTA, SLO, ultrasound) • electrophysiology: 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.

×