These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Functional assessment of the fundus autofluorescence pattern in Best vitelliform macular dystrophy.
    Author: Parodi MB, Iacono P, Del Turco C, Triolo G, Bandello F.
    Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol; 2016 Jul; 254(7):1297-302. PubMed ID: 26490373.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To identify the fundus autofluorescence (FAF) patterns in Best vitelliform macular dystrophy (VMD). METHODS: Patients affected by VMD in vitelliform, pseudohypopyon, and vitelliruptive stages underwent a complete ophthalmological examination, including best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), short-wavelength FAF (SW-FAF), near-infrared FAF (NIR-FAF) and microperimetry. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: the identification of the correlation between SW-FAF and NIR-FAF patterns of the foveal region with BCVA, and central retinal sensitivity in eyes affected by VMD. The secondary outcomes included the definition of the frequency of foveal patterns on SW-FAF and NIR-FAF. RESULTS: Thirty-seven of 64 (58 %), 8 of 64 (12.5 %) and 19 of 64 (29.5 %) eyes showed vitelliform, pseudohypopyon, and vitelliruptive stages respectively. Three main FAF patterns were identified on both techniques: hyper-autofluorescent pattern, hypo-autofluorescent pattern, and patchy pattern. BCVA was significantly different in eyes with hypo-autofluorescent and patchy patterns with respect to eyes showing a hyper-autofluorescent pattern. Similar differences were registered in the FS according to SW-FAF classification. However, the FS differed in each subgroup in the NIR-FAF analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed on the patchy pattern, combining FAF and fundus abnormalities. Considering both FAF techniques, the BCVA differed between the vitelliform and pseudohypopyon stages, and between the vitelliform and vitelliruptive stages. In the NIR-FAF classification, there was a significant statistical difference in the FS between each subgroup; in the SW-FAF, there was a significant difference between the vitelliform and pseudohypopyon stages and the vitelliform and vitelliruptive stages. CONCLUSIONS: Three main FAF patterns can be identified in VMD. The patchy pattern is the most frequent, accounting for 70 % of eyes on SW-FAF and 80 % of eyes on NIR-FAF. A tighter correlation links the classification of NIR-FAF patterns and FS. Longitudinal investigations are warranted to evaluate the course of FAF patterns and their role in disease monitoring.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]