Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Original article
Comparative study of patients with central serous chorioretinopathy undergoing focal laser photocoagulation or photodynamic therapy
  1. Ji Won Lim1,2,
  2. Se Woong Kang1,
  3. Yun-Taek Kim1,
  4. Song Ee Chung1,
  5. Seung Woo Lee1
  1. 1Department of Ophthalmology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  2. 2Department of Ophthalmology, Chuncheon Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University School of Medicine, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea
  1. Correspondence to Dr Se Woong Kang, Department of Ophthalmology Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 50 Ilwon-dong, Kangnam-ku, Seoul, 135-710, Republic of Korea; swkang{at}skku.edu

Aims To compare clinical outcomes for patients with central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC) undergoing either focal laser photocoagulation or photodynamic therapy (PDT).

Methods 26 eyes of 26 patients with symptomatic CSC underwent focal laser photocoagulation or half-dose PDT, as appropriate. Best-corrected visual acuity, optical coherence tomography and multifocal electroretinography were assessed prospectively prior to treatment and at 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment.

Results 12 eyes in the focal laser group and 14 eyes in the PDT group were evaluated. One month after PDT, all eyes, except one, showed complete absorption of subretinal fluid, whereas five eyes in the focal laser group showed residual subretinal fluid (p=0.022). Visual acuity and parameters of multifocal electroretinography improved from baseline at 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment, without any significant differences between the two groups. However, compared with those in the PDT group at 1 month after treatment, P1 latencies in the first annuli of the focal laser group were delayed (40.1±5.5 ms and 34.9±2.5 ms, respectively; p=0.047).

Conclusions Compared with focal laser, half-dose PDT may facilitate earlier resolution of macular detachment and earlier recovery of central retinal function. However, at 3 months after treatment and thereafter, no difference in anatomical and functional recovery was noted between the two modalities of treatment.

  • Central serous chorioretinopathy
  • focal laser photocoagulation
  • multifocal electroretinography
  • photodynamic therapy
  • Retina
  • Macula
  • Vision
  • Electrophysiology
  • Treatment Lasers

Statistics from Altmetric.com

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.

Aims To compare clinical outcomes for patients with central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC) undergoing either focal laser photocoagulation or photodynamic therapy (PDT).

Methods 26 eyes of 26 patients with symptomatic CSC underwent focal laser photocoagulation or half-dose PDT, as appropriate. Best-corrected visual acuity, optical coherence tomography and multifocal electroretinography were assessed prospectively prior to treatment and at 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment.

Results 12 eyes in the focal laser group and 14 eyes in the PDT group were evaluated. One month after PDT, all eyes, except one, showed complete absorption of subretinal fluid, whereas five eyes in the focal laser group showed residual subretinal fluid (p=0.022). Visual acuity and parameters of multifocal electroretinography improved from baseline at 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment, without any significant differences between the two groups. However, compared with those in the PDT group at 1 month after treatment, P1 latencies in the first annuli of the focal laser group were delayed (40.1±5.5 ms and 34.9±2.5 ms, respectively; p=0.047).

Conclusions Compared with focal laser, half-dose PDT may facilitate earlier resolution of macular detachment and earlier recovery of central retinal function. However, at 3 months after treatment and thereafter, no difference in anatomical and functional recovery was noted between the two modalities of treatment.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the the institutional review board of the Samsung Medical Center (IRB file number # 2008-05-030).

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

Linked Articles

  • At a glance
    Harminder S Dua Arun D Singh