Article Text

PDF
Pachychoroid pigment epitheliopathy in fellow eyes of patients with unilateral central serous chorioretinopathy
  1. M Giray Ersoz,
  2. Murat Karacorlu,
  3. Serra Arf,
  4. Mumin Hocaoglu,
  5. Isil Sayman Muslubas
  1. Istanbul Retina Institute, Istanbul, Turkey
  1. Correspondence to Professor Murat Karacorlu, Istanbul Retina Institute, Hakkı Yeten Cad. Unimed Center No: 19/7. Fulya – Şişli, Istanbul, Turkey; mkaracorlu{at}superonline.com

Abstract

Aims To investigate the prevalence of pachychoroid pigment epitheliopathy (PPE) in fellow eyes of patients with unilateral central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC) and to determine differences between patients with PPE, uncomplicated pachychoroid (UCP) and normal fellow eyes.

Methods We retrospectively reviewed 536 patients with CSC. Demographic and medical data, spectral domain optical coherence tomography scans with enhanced depth imaging mode, infrared reflectance images and fundus autofluorescence images were obtained from the patients’ medical records.

Results 254 (47.4%) of 536 patients had bilateral CSC. The female to male ratio was 1/2.8 in all patients with CSC. In patients with unilateral CSC (282 patients), 61% of fellow eyes had PPE, 30.8% had UCP and 8.2% were normal. There were no significant differences between patients with PPE, UCP and normal eyes in age, duration of disease, sex, presence of systemic hypertension, steroid use, psychopharmacological medication use, refractive error or central foveal thickness. Eyes with PPE and UCP did not differ regarding subfoveal choroidal thickness. In eyes with PPE (172 eyes), 77.3% had retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) bumps and 43% had pigment epithelium detachment.

Conclusion PPE is common in fellow eyes of patients with CSC. There is no difference between PPE and UCP regarding demographic characteristics and medical features.

  • choroid
  • retina

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors MGE and MK were involved in the conception and design of the study. MGE, MK and SA were involved in the analysis, interpretation and critical revision of the article. MGE was involved in the drafting of the manuscript. MGE, MK, IBSM, MH and SA were involved in the final approval of the article. MH, IBSM and MGE were involved in the data collection and literature research.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent This is a retrospective study.

  • Ethics approval The institutional review board of Sisli Memorial Hospital, Istanbul.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.