BACKGROUND: Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is the standard treatment procedure for many forms of exudative and/or neovascular AMD. Despite therapy, visual acuity often drops to low vision levels. The cost efficiency of treating the eye in which vision is worse is therefore the subject of some controversy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was conducted in all patients who were treated with PDT at the Universitätsspital Zürich between September 1999 and November 2004. Each patient's first (with worse vision) and second (with better vision) eyes were compared for situation on presentation and course during treatment. RESULTS: In 117/228 cases (51.3%) visual acuity of the treated eye was better than (or identical to) that of the fellow eye at presentation. Visual acuity before therapy was an average of 0.58+/-0.27 logMAR [Snellen: 0.26 (0.14-0.49)] in the eyes with better visual acuity and 0.69+/-0.4 logMAR [Snellen 0.20 (0.08-0.51)] in the fellow eyes (p=0.015). After therapy there was no significant difference between the patient groups in visual acuity or in the magnitude of any change in visual acuity, or in lesion size or change in lesion size. CONCLUSION: The outcome of PDT of a second eye (with better visual acuity) is not significantly better than the result obtained in the first eye (the one with worse visual acuity initially).
BACKGROUND: Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is the standard treatment procedure for many forms of exudative and/or neovascular AMD. Despite therapy, visual acuity often drops to low vision levels. The cost efficiency of treating the eye in which vision is worse is therefore the subject of some controversy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was conducted in all patients who were treated with PDT at the Universitätsspital Zürich between September 1999 and November 2004. Each patient's first (with worse vision) and second (with better vision) eyes were compared for situation on presentation and course during treatment. RESULTS: In 117/228 cases (51.3%) visual acuity of the treated eye was better than (or identical to) that of the fellow eye at presentation. Visual acuity before therapy was an average of 0.58+/-0.27 logMAR [Snellen: 0.26 (0.14-0.49)] in the eyes with better visual acuity and 0.69+/-0.4 logMAR [Snellen 0.20 (0.08-0.51)] in the fellow eyes (p=0.015). After therapy there was no significant difference between the patient groups in visual acuity or in the magnitude of any change in visual acuity, or in lesion size or change in lesion size. CONCLUSION: The outcome of PDT of a second eye (with better visual acuity) is not significantly better than the result obtained in the first eye (the one with worse visual acuity initially).
Authors: Keven J Blinder; Shannon Bradley; Neil M Bressler; Susan B Bressler; Guy Donati; Yong Hao; Colin Ma; Ugo Menchini; Joan Miller; Michael J Potter; Constantin Pournaras; Al Reaves; Philip J Rosenfeld; H Andrew Strong; Michael Stur; Xiang Yao Su; Gianni Virgili Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 5.258