In Brief Purpose: The purpose of this study was to describe clinical, angiographic, and tomo-graphic prognostic factors in central serous chorioretinopathy. Methods: This is a prospective uncontrolled case series. Forty-six eyes (43 patients) with clinical and angiographic findings consistent with central serous chorioretinopathy were included. Clinical data regarding age, sex, duration of symptoms, associated conditions, and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were collected at baseline. Optical coherence tomography was performed at baseline, monthly until fluid resolution occurred, and at the end of the follow-up. Results: Mean follow-up was 22.8 months. Mean baseline and final logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution BCVA were 0.3 and 0.12 (P < 0.0001), respectively. Statistically significant correlations were observed between the baseline BCVA as well as duration of symptoms and final BCVA. Angiographic patterns were not significantly correlated with the visual outcome. Shorter periods of subfoveal fluid during the follow-up were correlated with better visual acuity. Mean foveal thickness after fluid resolution was 178 ± 22 μm. Both baseline and final BCVA were strongly correlated with the foveal thickness after fluid resolution. Conclusion: Initial BCVA may be a reliable predictor of the visual outcome in central serous chorioretinopathy. Eyes with worse BCVA may have an increased risk of foveal atrophy. Fluid persistence on optical coherence tomography may be associated with worse visual prognosis. The authors prospectively studied 46 eyes of patients with central serous chorioretinopathy with a mean follow-up of 22.8 months. Statistically significant correlations were observed between baseline and final visual acuity and duration of symptoms and final visual acuity. Shorter periods of subfoveal fluid during the follow-up were correlated with better final visual acuity. Both baseline and final visual acuity were correlated with the foveal thickness after fluid resolution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aggio et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: