摘要
Objectives: To study the visual field changes after intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) injection and sulfotanshinone sodium (SS) injection for macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO), and discuss the value of microperimetry as a routine diagnostic test in the follow-up of RVO patients. Methods: This was a retrospective, interventional, case-series study. Twelve eyes of 12 RVO patients, including 6 eyes with central RVO (CRVO) and 6 eyes with branch RVO (BRVO) were included. The eyes were treated with IVR (0.5 mg) injections and SS injections (20 mg per day, one week consecutively in one month). The outcomes measured included best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), mean defect (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), macular light sensitivity of the central 16 points in CRVO group and the central 8 points in BRVO group before and after the treatment. Statistical analyses were then performed on the main outcome measures. Results: An improvement of BCVA was found in all patients after treatment with significant difference (t = 7.74, p p p p > 0.05). All RVO patients had their macular light sensitivity of the involved part improved significantly (t = 5.03, p p p < 0.01). The Pearson’s correlation was calculated among BCVA, MD, macular light sensitivity and CRT. No obvious significance was found between CRT and BCVA outcomes, whereas MD and mean macular light sensitivity outcomes were closely related to BCVA results in the BRVO group and the latter showed a more intimate correlation. No similar correlation was found in RVO and CRVO group. Conclusion: IVR injection and SS injection together could effectively improve the therapeutic effect in RVO patients with ME. Microperimetry could be used as a routine diagnostic test and a possible valuable tool in the follow-up of patients with RVO, especially in BRVO.
Objectives: To study the visual field changes after intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) injection and sulfotanshinone sodium (SS) injection for macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO), and discuss the value of microperimetry as a routine diagnostic test in the follow-up of RVO patients. Methods: This was a retrospective, interventional, case-series study. Twelve eyes of 12 RVO patients, including 6 eyes with central RVO (CRVO) and 6 eyes with branch RVO (BRVO) were included. The eyes were treated with IVR (0.5 mg) injections and SS injections (20 mg per day, one week consecutively in one month). The outcomes measured included best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), mean defect (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), macular light sensitivity of the central 16 points in CRVO group and the central 8 points in BRVO group before and after the treatment. Statistical analyses were then performed on the main outcome measures. Results: An improvement of BCVA was found in all patients after treatment with significant difference (t = 7.74, p p p p > 0.05). All RVO patients had their macular light sensitivity of the involved part improved significantly (t = 5.03, p p p < 0.01). The Pearson’s correlation was calculated among BCVA, MD, macular light sensitivity and CRT. No obvious significance was found between CRT and BCVA outcomes, whereas MD and mean macular light sensitivity outcomes were closely related to BCVA results in the BRVO group and the latter showed a more intimate correlation. No similar correlation was found in RVO and CRVO group. Conclusion: IVR injection and SS injection together could effectively improve the therapeutic effect in RVO patients with ME. Microperimetry could be used as a routine diagnostic test and a possible valuable tool in the follow-up of patients with RVO, especially in BRVO.
