PURPOSE: To quantify the signal intensity of fundus autofluorescence (FAF) and evaluate its association with visual function and optical coherence tomography (OCT) findings in diabetic macular oedema (DMO). METHODS: We reviewed 103 eyes of 78 patients with DMO and 30 eyes of 22 patients without DMO. FAF images were acquired using Heidelberg Retina Angiograph 2, and the signal levels of FAF in the individual subfields of the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study grid were measured. We evaluated the association between quantified FAF and the logMAR VA and OCT findings. RESULTS: One hundred and three eyes with DMO had lower FAF signal intensity levels in the parafoveal subfields compared with 30 eyes without DMO. The autofluorescence intensity in the parafoveal subfields was associated negatively with logMAR VA and the retinal thickness in the corresponding subfields. The autofluorescence levels in the parafoveal subfield, except the nasal subfield, were lower in eyes with autofluorescent cystoid spaces in the corresponding subfield than in those without autofluorescent cystoid spaces. The autofluorescence level in the central subfield was related to foveal cystoid spaces but not logMAR VA or retinal thickness in the corresponding area. CONCLUSIONS: Quantified FAF in the parafovea has diagnostic significance and is clinically relevant in DMO.
PURPOSE: To quantify the signal intensity of fundus autofluorescence (FAF) and evaluate its association with visual function and optical coherence tomography (OCT) findings in diabetic macular oedema (DMO). METHODS: We reviewed 103 eyes of 78 patients with DMO and 30 eyes of 22 patients without DMO. FAF images were acquired using Heidelberg Retina Angiograph 2, and the signal levels of FAF in the individual subfields of the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study grid were measured. We evaluated the association between quantified FAF and the logMAR VA and OCT findings. RESULTS: One hundred and three eyes with DMO had lower FAF signal intensity levels in the parafoveal subfields compared with 30 eyes without DMO. The autofluorescence intensity in the parafoveal subfields was associated negatively with logMAR VA and the retinal thickness in the corresponding subfields. The autofluorescence levels in the parafoveal subfield, except the nasal subfield, were lower in eyes with autofluorescent cystoid spaces in the corresponding subfield than in those without autofluorescent cystoid spaces. The autofluorescence level in the central subfield was related to foveal cystoid spaces but not logMAR VA or retinal thickness in the corresponding area. CONCLUSIONS: Quantified FAF in the parafovea has diagnostic significance and is clinically relevant in DMO.
Authors: Anjali S Maheshwary; Stephen F Oster; Ritchie M S Yuson; Lingyun Cheng; Francesca Mojana; William R Freeman Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2010-05-10 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Mahiul M K Muqit; Jane C B Gray; George R Marcellino; David B Henson; Lorna B Young; Niall Patton; Stephen J Charles; George S Turner; Paulo E Stanga Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Tarek Alasil; Pearse A Keane; Jared F Updike; Laurie Dustin; Yanling Ouyang; Alexander C Walsh; Srinivas R Sadda Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2010-06-18 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: David J Browning; Adam R Glassman; Lloyd Paul Aiello; Roy W Beck; David M Brown; Donald S Fong; Neil M Bressler; Ronald P Danis; James L Kinyoun; Quan Dong Nguyen; Abdhish R Bhavsar; Justin Gottlieb; Dante J Pieramici; Michael E Rauser; Rajendra S Apte; Jennifer I Lim; Päivi H Miskala Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2006-11-21 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: James Kang Hao Goh; Carol Y Cheung; Shaun Sebastian Sim; Pok Chien Tan; Gavin Siew Wei Tan; Tien Yin Wong Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2016-02-01