Sarah Mrejen1, Taku Sato1, Christine A Curcio2, Richard F Spaide3. 1. Vitreous Retina Macula Consultants of New York, New York, New York; LuEsther T. Mertz Retinal Research Center, Manhattan Eye, Ear, and Throat Hospital, New York, New York. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 3. Vitreous Retina Macula Consultants of New York, New York, New York; LuEsther T. Mertz Retinal Research Center, Manhattan Eye, Ear, and Throat Hospital, New York, New York. Electronic address: rick.spaide@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the cone photoreceptor mosaic in eyes with pseudodrusen as evidenced by the presence of subretinal drusenoid deposits (SDD) and conventional drusen using adaptive optics (AO) imaging integrated into a multimodal imaging approach. DESIGN: Observational case series. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven patients (11 eyes) with pseudodrusen and 6 patients (11 eyes) with conventional drusen. METHODS: Consecutive patients were examined using near-infrared reflectance (IR) confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (SLO) and eye-tracked spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and flood-illuminated retinal AO camera of nonconfluent pseudodrusen or conventional drusen. Correlations were made between the IR-SLO, SD-OCT, and AO images. Cone density analysis was performed on AO images within 50 × 50-μm windows in 5 regions of interest overlying and in 5 located between SDD or conventional drusen with the same retinal eccentricity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cone densities in the regions of interest. RESULTS: The pseudodrusen correlated with subretinal accumulations of material in SD-OCT imaging and this was confirmed in the AO images. Defects in the overlying ellipsoid zone band as seen by SD-OCT were associated with SDD but not conventional drusen. The mean ± standard deviation cone density was 8964 ± 2793 cones/mm(2) between the SDD and 863 ± 388 cones/mm² over the SDD, a 90.4% numerical reduction. By comparison the mean cone packing density was 9838 ± 3723 cones/mm² on conventional drusen and 12,595 ± 3323) cones/mm² between them, a 21.9% numerical reduction. The difference in cone density reduction between the two lesion types was highly significant (P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The pseudodrusen in these eyes correlated with subretinal deposition of material in multiple imaging modalities. Reduced visibility of cones overlying SDD in the AO images can be because of several possible causes, including a change in their orientation, an alteration of their cellular architecture, or absence of the cones themselves. All of these explanations imply that decreased cone photoreceptor function is possible, suggesting that eyes with pseudodrusen appearance may experience decreased retinal function in age-related macular degeneration independent of choroidal neovascularization or retinal pigment epithelial atrophy.
PURPOSE: To investigate the cone photoreceptor mosaic in eyes with pseudodrusen as evidenced by the presence of subretinal drusenoid deposits (SDD) and conventional drusen using adaptive optics (AO) imaging integrated into a multimodal imaging approach. DESIGN: Observational case series. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven patients (11 eyes) with pseudodrusen and 6 patients (11 eyes) with conventional drusen. METHODS: Consecutive patients were examined using near-infrared reflectance (IR) confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (SLO) and eye-tracked spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and flood-illuminated retinal AO camera of nonconfluent pseudodrusen or conventional drusen. Correlations were made between the IR-SLO, SD-OCT, and AO images. Cone density analysis was performed on AO images within 50 × 50-μm windows in 5 regions of interest overlying and in 5 located between SDD or conventional drusen with the same retinal eccentricity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cone densities in the regions of interest. RESULTS: The pseudodrusen correlated with subretinal accumulations of material in SD-OCT imaging and this was confirmed in the AO images. Defects in the overlying ellipsoid zone band as seen by SD-OCT were associated with SDD but not conventional drusen. The mean ± standard deviation cone density was 8964 ± 2793 cones/mm(2) between the SDD and 863 ± 388 cones/mm² over the SDD, a 90.4% numerical reduction. By comparison the mean cone packing density was 9838 ± 3723 cones/mm² on conventional drusen and 12,595 ± 3323) cones/mm² between them, a 21.9% numerical reduction. The difference in cone density reduction between the two lesion types was highly significant (P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The pseudodrusen in these eyes correlated with subretinal deposition of material in multiple imaging modalities. Reduced visibility of cones overlying SDD in the AO images can be because of several possible causes, including a change in their orientation, an alteration of their cellular architecture, or absence of the cones themselves. All of these explanations imply that decreased cone photoreceptor function is possible, suggesting that eyes with pseudodrusen appearance may experience decreased retinal function in age-related macular degeneration independent of choroidal neovascularization or retinal pigment epithelial atrophy.
Authors: Mahsa A Sohrab; R Theodore Smith; Hani Salehi-Had; SriniVas R Sadda; Amani A Fawzi Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-07-29 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Giuseppe Querques; Nathalie Massamba; Benjamin Guigui; Querques Lea; Barbara Lamory; Gisèle Soubrane; Eric H Souied Journal: Acta Ophthalmol Date: 2011-08-23 Impact factor: 3.761
Authors: H M Leibowitz; D E Krueger; L R Maunder; R C Milton; M M Kini; H A Kahn; R J Nickerson; J Pool; T L Colton; J P Ganley; J I Loewenstein; T R Dawber Journal: Surv Ophthalmol Date: 1980 May-Jun Impact factor: 6.048
Authors: R Theodore Smith; Jackie K Chan; Mihai Busuoic; Vasuki Sivagnanavel; Alan C Bird; N Victor Chong Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Shu Feng; Michael J Gale; Jonathan D Fay; Ambar Faridi; Hope E Titus; Anupam K Garg; Keith V Michaels; Laura R Erker; Dawn Peters; Travis B Smith; Mark E Pennesi Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: David Neely; Anna V Zarubina; Mark E Clark; Carrie E Huisingh; Gregory R Jackson; Yuhua Zhang; Gerald McGwin; Christine A Curcio; Cynthia Owsley Journal: Retina Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Zhichao Wu; Chi D Luu; Lauren N Ayton; Jonathan K Goh; Lucia M Lucci; William C Hubbard; Jill L Hageman; Gregory S Hageman; Robyn H Guymer Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Rachel M Cymerman; Adam H Skolnick; William J Cole; Camellia Nabati; Christine A Curcio; R Theodore Smith Journal: Curr Eye Res Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 2.424
Authors: Yuhua Zhang; Xiaolin Wang; Ernesto Blanco Rivero; Mark E Clark; Clark Douglas Witherspoon; Richard F Spaide; Christopher A Girkin; Cynthia Owsley; Christine A Curcio Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Thomas Ach; Carrie Huisingh; Gerald McGwin; Jeffrey D Messinger; Tianjiao Zhang; Mark J Bentley; Danielle B Gutierrez; Zsolt Ablonczy; R Theodore Smith; Kenneth R Sloan; Christine A Curcio Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Megan E Land; Robert F Cooper; Jonathon Young; Elizabeth Berg; Terrie Kitchner; Qun Xiang; Aniko Szabo; Lynn C Ivacic; Kimberly E Stepien; C David Page; Joseph Carroll; Thomas Connor; Murray Brilliant Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 1.973