Purpose To compare luminal and stromal area of the choroid in eyes with drusen and reticular pseudodrusen (RPD) and to investigate their changes over 24 months.
Methods In eyes with drusen and RPD and control subjects, total choroidal, luminal and stromal area were measured on optical coherence tomography B-scans converted to binary images, at baseline and after 24 months.
Results Eighteen eyes of 18 subjects for each group were included. In drusen and RPD, we found reduction of mean total choroidal (p=0.0005 and p<0.0001, respectively), luminal (p=0.003 and p<0.0001, respectively) and stromal area (p=0.007 and p=0.0002, respectively) from baseline to month 24; no change of ratio between luminal–stromal and the choroidal area was recorded. Mean luminal, stromal and total choroidal areas were reduced in RPD, as compared with drusen and controls at both baseline and month 24 (p<0.05 for all). In RPD, the stromal area was more represented, as we found lower mean ratio of luminal and total choroidal area compared with drusen and control at both baseline and month 24 (p<0.05 for all).
Conclusions Mean total choroidal, luminal and stromal area decreased over 24 months similarly in eyes with drusen and RPD. Mean total choroidal, luminal and stromal area were more reduced in eyes with RPD, as compared with eyes with drusen and controls; however, stromal area was more represented in eyes with RPD suggesting a possible role of choroidal vascular depletion and fibrotic replacement in the pathogenesis and disease progression.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors All the authors meet the ICMJE recommendations for authorship credit (substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data; drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; final approval of the version published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Obtained.
Ethics approval This study was institutional review board (IRB) approved at both sites and was carried out in compliance with local and national IRB guidelines.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
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.