Skip to main content
Download PDF

OCT biomarkers related to subthreshold micropulse laser treatment effect in central serous chorioretinopathy

BMC Ophthalmology volume 22, Article number: 252 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

To identify the OCT biomarkers related to the anatomical outcomes in eyes with central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR) after subthreshold micropulse laser (SML) treatment.

Methods

Patients with CSCR underwent SML were enrolled in this retrospective study. Only patients who underwent enhanced depth imaging optical coherence tomography (EDI-OCT) examination before and after SML were selected. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether subretinal fluid (SRF) absorbed or not after SML. Group 1 was the SRF resolved group, and Group 2 was the SRF non-resolved group. Factors including age and gender, duration of symptoms, CSCR history, the height of SRF at baseline, retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) /inner choroid alterations, as well as subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT) of the affected eye and the fellow eye before and after SML were recorded and compared between two groups. Longitudinal change of SFCT of a subgroup of patients were analyzed.

Results

A total of 58 eyes of 58 patients were involved in this study. SRF of 31 eyes got completely absorbed, and SRF of 27 eyes was retained after SML. Logistic regression analysis revealed baseline SFCT of the affected eye (OR = 1.007, 95% CI: 1.001–1.012, P = 0.019) and RPE/inner choroid alterations (OR = 25.229, 95% CI: 2.890–220.281, P = 0.004) were correlated with SML efficacy. Thirty-three eyes of 33 patients were enrolled in the subgroup analysis. A significant difference of SFCT changes between two groups were demonstrated (P = 0.001). The difference of SFCT between baseline and three months after SML was also related to SRF resolution (OR = 0.952, 95% CI: 0.915–0.990, P = 0.014).

Conclusion

Baseline SFCT, change of SFCT at 3-month after treatment, and RPE/inner choroid alterations were the OCT biomarkers related to SRF resolution after SML treatment.

Peer Review reports

Background

Central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR) is one of the leading causes of vision problems in the middle-aged population, characterized by subretinal fluid (SRF) with or without pigment epithelial detachment (PED) [1]. Although most acute CSCR is self-limited with a recurrence rate of 30 to 50%, about 15 ~ 20% of acute CSCR converted to chronic type [2,3,4], characterized by persistent SRF more than four months [1, 5] and retina pigment epithelium (RPE) atrophy, leading to permanent damage of photoreceptors. Treatment is recommended for chronic or recurrent CSCR, including photodynamic therapy (PDT), focal laser photocoagulation of leakage point on fluorescein fundus angiography (FFA) images, subthreshold micropulse laser (SML), oral diuretics, and systemic or local carbohydrase inhibitors [6]. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor should be considered when secondary choroidal neovascularization (CNV) is developed [7, 8]. So far, no consensus exists regarding the management of CSCR. Among these treatment options, SML is the only one that does not cause functional damage or structural damage or side effects [9]. Due to the complications and lack of clear effect of focal laser, it has been used less and less in clinical practice [10]. Complex CSCR according to the new multimodal imaging based classification [11] often required PDT [12]. However, the shortage of Visudyne supply in China has limited the application of PDT for CSCR patients. Considering the self-limiting nature of acute CSCR, the current standard care for it is observation. However, as many studies indicated, even short period fluid accumulation in the subretinal space may cause a certain amount of damage to photoreceptors [13, 14]. In order to save photoreceptors from SRF damage, SML was chose to treat the acute CSCR by some clinicians based on its the safety nature. Compared with observation, acute CSCR treated with SML had better visual acuity and higher contrast sensitivity, and less risk of recurrence and progression into chronic version [15].

It is thought SML targets retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) and stimulates functional RPE to drain SRF into choroidal circulation [9]. One recent study showed the efficacy of SML is related to RPE function [16]: SML is effective for restoring macular anatomy and visual sensitivity in CSCR cases with mild or moderate RPE defects; in contrast, it has only a minimal outcome in CSCR eyes with severe RPE defects. Moreover, previous studies have shown that older age, higher choroidal thickness, and inner choroid attenuation are related to CSCR duration and visual recovery [17,18,19]. However, it is not clear whether these factors are related to anatomic outcomes after SML in CSCR.

The purpose of this study is investigating the optical coherence tomography (OCT) biomarkers related to SML efficacy in CSCR, with particular attention to choroid thickness, RPE alterations and inner choroid attenuation.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with CSCR from November 2020 to January 2022 were enrolled in a retrospective study at Eye Center, Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University. The Institutional Review Board of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University approved the study. The study was performed in accordance with the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. The need for written informed consent was waived by the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University because of the retrospective design and the use of de-identified patient data.

Patients of CSCR, either acute or chronic CSCR, who underwent SML treatment were selected. No patient had received direct CSCR treatments, including focal laser, PDT, and SML. All patients underwent FFA and OCT angiography (OCTA, OptovueRTVue XR 100; AVANTI, Inc) examination to rule out the presence of CNV. The FFA patterns of all patients involved in this study presented diffused leakage or leaking spots within 500 μm to the fovea. The SML treatment was performed by a single doctor (PPY) with a 577 nm micropulse laser mode (Quantel Medical). The laser parameter was set to a 5% duty cycle. The spot size was 160 μm. The exposure duration was 200 ms. A nine-spot matrix with non-spacing between two spots was chosen. On the micropulse mode, the threshold power was titrated at the arch area to show a light visible burn. And the power was doubled in the micropulse emission mode. The final laser power used for patients was around 400mW. SML was performed on the macular area with SRF. The total laser burns were between 150 and 200.

Macular raster OCT images (Spectralis OCT, Heidelberg Engineering, Inc., Heidelberg, Germany) were collected under enhanced depth imaging (EDI) mode before and after SML treatment. The exclusion criteria include previous retinal surgery history, ocular trauma, presence of CNV, coexistence of other retinal disorders such as pathologic myopia and diabetic retinopathy, and inability to obtain EDI-OCT images due to media opacity or significant eye movements.

Patients were categorized into two groups based on whether SRF was completely absorbed or not after SML. Group 1 is the SRF resolved group, and Group 2 is the SRF non-resolved group. The patients with EDI-OCT images taken at both one month and three months after SML treatment were enrolled in a subgroup analysis for investigating the longitudinal change of SFCT after SML.

Subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT) and the height of SRF were measured by FZ using the build-in software of the instrument from the OCT scan through the fovea. If the choroidal-scleral boundary is ambiguous on the OCT images, the case is ruled out from the final analysis. The presence of RPE hyper-transmission defects, irregular PED, and/or inner choroid attenuation on OCT images were defined as RPE/inner choroid alterations (as shown in Fig. 1). The RPE/inner choroid alterations on baseline OCT images were evaluated by two independent graders (FZ and JLH). They were blinded to the grouping. After completing grading, the graders discussed disagreements and produced a consensus. The disagreement was adjudicated by a senior grader (PPY). Demographic information like age and gender, duration of symptoms, and CSCR history was recorded.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Demonstration of RPE/inner choroid alterations observed in the CSCR patients. A The OCT image showing inner choroid attenuation pushed by the underlying large choroid vessels (asterisk). B The OCT image showing irregular PED (red arrow). C The OCT image showing hyper-transmission defects (red arrows)

Full size image

All data were described as mean ± SD. Chi-square test was used to analyze descriptive data. The continuous data was analyzed by an independent-sample T-test. The means of SFCT measured in different visits were compared with repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). The factors related to the efficacy of SML were analyzed by the logistic regression model. The P value less than 0.05 was recognized as statistically significant. Statistical analysis was performed with IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

A total of 58 eyes of 58 patients (47 male) with a mean age of 47.72 ± 8.53 years old were involved in this study. SRF of 31 eyes (53.45%) reached completely absorbed after SML (Group 1), and SRF of 27 eyes (46.55%) was retained after SML (Group 2). There was no difference in age, gender, and CSCR history between the two groups. SFCT of the affected eyes and in the fellow eyes was not significantly different between Group 1 and Group 2. And no significant difference was detected in baseline height of SRF between two groups. In Group 2, only one subject was graded as having no RPE/inner choroidal alterations. Statistic differences were found in the duration of symptoms and percentage of patients having RPE/inner choroid alterations between the two groups (Table 1). Logistic regression analysis revealed baseline SFCT of the affected eye (OR = 1.007, 95% CI: 1.001–1.012, P = 0.019) and RPE/inner choroid alterations (OR = 25.229, 95% CI: 2.890–220.281, P = 0.004) were correlated with the resolution of SRF. Other factors including age (OR = 1.051, 95% CI: 0.985–1.121, P = 0.131), gender (OR = 1.056, 95% CI: 0.283–3.945, P = 0.935), duration of symptoms (OR = 1.373, 95% CI: 0.965–1.952, P = 0.078), CSCR history (OR = 2.162, 95% CI: 0.779–6.659, P = 0.134), the height of SRF (OR = 1.002, 95% CI: 0.991–1.006, P = 0.435), and SFCT of the fellow eye (OR = 1.002, 95% CI: 0.997–1.007, P = 0.507) were not predictive factors of SML efficacy.

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of CSCR patients
Full size table

Thirty-three eyes of 33 patients with two post-SML EDI-OCT taken were enrolled in the subgroup analysis. In Group 1, the mean SFCT measurements of baseline, one month after SML and three months after SML were 394.06 ± 126.92 μm, 363.50 ± 128.58 μm, and 347.81 ± 114.70 μm, respectively; in Group 2, mean SFCT measurements remained stable with slightly increased at three months after SML (503.53 ± 138.14 μm, 501.71 ± 133.01 μm, 516.88 ± 142.25 μm) (Figs. 2, 3). Repeated measures ANOVA demonstrated a significant difference in serial SFCT changes between the two groups (P = 0.001). However, the changes of SFCT within groups were not statistically significant (All P > 0.05). The difference between baseline SFCT and 3-month SFCT was also correlated to anatomic outcomes after SML (OR = 0.952, 95% CI: 0.915–0.990, P = 0.014).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Demonstration of subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT) change after subthreshold micropulse laser (SML) in the different subgroups using enhanced depth imaging optical coherence tomography (EDI-OCT). A The EDI-OCT image of a patients before SML treatment in Group 1 showing no abnormality of RPE and a SFCT of 598 μm. B The EDI-OCT image of the patients at one month after treatment in Group 1 showing complete absorption of subretinal fluid (SRF) and a SFCT of 451 μm. C The EDI-OCT image of the patients at three months after treatment in Group 1 showing no recurrence of SRF and a SFCT of 442 μm. D The EDI-OCT image of a patients before SML treatment in Group 2 showing RPE hyper-transmission defects, irregular PED, inner choroid attenuation and a SFCT of 549 μm. E The EDI-OCT image of the patients at one month after treatment in Group 2 showing persistence of SRF and a SFCT of 553 μm. F The EDI-OCT image of the patients at three months after treatment in Group 2 showing increased in height of SRF and a SFCT of 550 μm

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Plots showing subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT) change after subthreshold micropulse laser (SML) treatment in two groups

Full size image

Discussion

This study showed a 53% resolution rate of SRF after SML in CSCR patients. Baseline SFCT of the affected eye and the presence of RPE/inner choroid alterations were the OCT biomarkers related to SML efficacy. The decline of mean SFCT after SML was only noticed in Group 1. By comparison, mean SFCT of Group 2 got slightly increased. The change of SFCT after SML was also identified as a factor influencing the anatomic outcomes of SML in CSCR in the current study.

Unlike traditional laser photocoagulation, SML avoids scarring of RPE and retina by diffusing the heat to surrounding tissue. SML can stimulate SRF absorption by inducing reactions in RPE chromophores, including the possible production of heat shock protein [20]. SML has been shown to be effective in both acute and chronic CSCR. Superior visual rehabilitation was noted in SML-treated patients compared to observation in terms of BCVA, contrast sensitivity, and metamorphopsia in acute CSCR [15]. Arsan et al. demonstrated SML could significantly increase BCVA and decrease SRF in non-resolving CSCR patients [21]. Prasuhn et al. showed decreased central retinal thickness after SML in CSCR patients with persistent SRF either with or without secondary CNV [22]. However, compared with half-dose PDT, SML has a lower SRF complete resolution rate [23]. The PLACE trial, a multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial designed for chronic CSCR, showed 29% of patients with complete SRF resolution in the SML group and 67% of patients with complete SRF resolution in the half-dose PDT group at 7–8 months after the first treatment [23]. In our study, the resolution rate of SRF is 53% after a single SML, which is higher than PLACE trial. The reason might be both acute and chronic CSCR were involved in this study. And Group 1 had much shorter symptoms than group 2, indicating more acute CSCR got resolved after treatment. What’s more, the inappropriate laser setting and application of SML in PLACE trail were thought to be the reason for low resolution rate of SRF [24].

Both choroid and RPE contribute to the pathogenesis of CSCR [1]. CSCR belongs to the pachychoroid disease spectrum [25]. The choroid thickness of the affected eyes in CSCR is much thicker than the healthy eyes and the contralateral eyes [26]. Increased choroid thickness indicates hyper-permeability alterations of the choroid and can be recognized as the indicator of disease activity [1, 27]. Even though baseline SFCT was not significantly different between the two groups, it acted as a predictor of SRF resolution in our study. The thicker choroid of diseased eyes indicates a worse response to SML, which might be explained by the high activity of CSCR of these patients. Decreased SFCT was noticed after different treatments for CSCR [28,29,30,31]. Similar alterations of choroid thickness after SML treatment were also reported by other researchers [21, 22]. Compared with observation, choroidal thickness was significantly lower in the SML-treated group at eight weeks, sixteen weeks, and six months after treatment in acute CSCR [15]. In our study, decreased SFCT was only noticed in the SRF-resolved group (Group 1). The decrease of SFCT may indicate less activity of the disease and improvement of choroidal hyperpermeability after SML treatment. In Group 2, no decrease of SFCT was observed at one month or three months after SML treatment, indicating the prolonged high permeability of choroid, which might be the reason for the persistence of SRF in these eyes. Besides, we have found the change of SFCT at three months after SML was correlated with resolution of SRF. Another group also found that change of SFCT through twelve months was correlated with resolution of disease [32]. Our findings enhanced the importance of choroid in the pathology and prognosis of CSCR.

Diffuse RPE changes are often observed in chronic CSCR, including RPE detachment, RPE hypertrophy, and RPE atrophy [1]. The alterations of RPE in CSCR have receiving increasing attention in recent years. Color fundus photo, fundus autofluorescence, and OCT were commonly used to evaluate the function of RPE. A 2- disc diameter of RPE atrophy was defined as threshold to subclassify CSCR into simple or complex, according to a multimodal imaging-based CSCR classification system [11]. Diffuse RPE atrophy was described in cases of severe chronic CSC, possibly caused by long-term SRF persistent, phachychoroid vessels compression, and inner choroid ischemia [33]. If the area of diffuse atrophic RPE alterations more than five disc diameters at the macula, it can be defined as severe chronic CSCR [34]. Hypertransmission of RPE on OCT images indicates RPE attenuation or disruption [35]. By detecting pigment loss of the RPE in CSCR patients, a new imaging modality named dark-field SLO images can be used to predict the response to laser treatments [36]. As inner choroid has a direct influence on RPE, inner choroid attenuation may cause ischemia of RPE, which may lead to RPE dysfunction eventually. Since SML was designed to target RPE, RPE and inner choroid alterations might have a certain impact on the treatment effect. This is proven by the fact that only one out of twenty-seven eyes in Group 2 was graded as having no RPE and inner choroid alterations. The presence of RPE/inner choroid alterations was also shown to be a predictive factor related to insufficient response to SML treatment.

A previous study found that age and disease duration were risk factors for persistent SRF after SML in eyes with chronic CSCR [37]. But in our study, these two factors were not correlated to SML efficacy. Even symptom duration of Group 1 (2.42 ± 1.361) was less than that of Group 2 (4.04 ± 3.848) significantly, it is not a predictive factor for SRF resolution. The possible explanation is that both acute and chronic CSCR were involved in this study. And the rate of acute CSCR in group 1 was not significantly different from that in group2. Moreover, when taking other factors into account, the symptom duration became less important.

One limitation of this study is that many subjects only had one visit after receiving SML. So only 33 eyes got two EDI-OCT taken after SML and these eyes were selected in the subgroup analysis for investigating longitudinal SFCT change after the treatment. Another limitation of this study is using a single OCT image for choroidal thickness measurement. However, a study has demonstrated that no significant difference between SFCT and the mean of choroidal thickness in the central millimeter of cube scans by using swept-source OCT [38]. We have to clarify that the change of choroid we measured in the current study is limited to the central macular region. Whether the change of choroid thickness in a larger area influents treatment effect of SML still needs further investigation. In addition, functional measurements, including microperimetry and visual acuity of CSCR patients before and after SML, were not recorded in this study. The functional improvement after SML is worthy of being investigated in future studies.

Conclusions

SML is effective for certain CSCR patients. Thicker baseline SFCT of the affected eye and the presence of RPE/ inner choroid alterations predict unsatisfied outcomes after SML. Failure to observe a decrease in SFCT after SML indicates the likelihood of SRF persistence.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding authors on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CSCR:

Central serous chorioretinopathy

SML:

Subthreshold micropulse laser

EDI:

Enhanced depth imaging

OCT:

Optical coherence tomography

SRF:

Subretinal fluid

RPE:

Retinal pigment epithelium

SFCT:

Subfoveal choroidal thickness

PED:

Pigment epithelial detachment

PDT:

Photodynamic therapy

FFA:

Fluorescein fundus angiography

CNV:

Choroidal neovascularization

References

  1. Kaye R, Chandra S, Sheth J, Boon CJF, Sivaprasad S, Lotery A. Central serous chorioretinopathy: an update on risk factors, pathophysiology and imaging modalities. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2020;79:100865.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gilbert CM, Owens SL, Smith PD, Fine SL. Long-term follow-up of central serous chorioretinopathy. Br J Ophthalmol. 1984;68(11):815–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ozkaya A, Alkin Z, Ozveren M, Yazici AT, Taskapili M. The time of resolution and the rate of recurrence in acute central serous chorioretinopathy following spontaneous resolution and low-fluence photodynamic therapy: a case-control study. Eye (Lond). 2016;30(7):1005–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kitzmann AS, Pulido JS, Diehl NN, Hodge DO, Burke JP. The incidence of central serous chorioretinopathy in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1980–2002. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(1):169–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wang M, Munch IC, Hasler PW, Prunte C, Larsen M. Central serous chorioretinopathy. Acta Ophthalmol. 2008;86(2):126–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. van Rijssen TJ, van Dijk EHC, Yzer S, Ohno-Matsui K, Keunen JEE, Schlingemann RO, et al. Central serous chorioretinopathy: Towards an evidence-based treatment guideline. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2019;73:100770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Peiretti E, Caminiti G, Serra R, Querques L, Pertile R, Querques G. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy versus photodynamic therapy in the treatment of choroidal neovascularization secondary to central serous chorioretinopathy. Retina. 2018;38(8):1526–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Romdhane K, Zola M, Matet A, Daruich A, Elalouf M, Behar-Cohen F, et al. Predictors of treatment response to intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy for choroidal neovascularisation secondary to chronic central serous chorioretinopathy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2020;104(7):910–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dorin G. Subthreshold and micropulse diode laser photocoagulation. Semin Ophthalmol. 2003;18(3):147–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. BattagliaParodi M, Arrigo A, Iacono P, Falcomata B, Bandello F. Central serous chorioretinopathy: treatment with laser. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2020;13(11):359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chhablani J, Cohen FB, Central Serous Chorioretinopathy International G. Multimodal imaging-based central serous chorioretinopathy classification. Ophthalmol Retina. 2020;4(11):1043–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Arora S, Maltsev DS, Singh Randhir S, Sahoo NK, Jhingan M, Parmeshwarappa D, et al. One year outcome and predictors of treatment outcome in central serous chorioretinopathy: Multimodal imaging based analysis. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021:11206721211055018. https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721211055018.

  13. Hata M, Oishi A, Shimozono M, Mandai M, Nishida A, Kurimoto Y. Early changes in foveal thickness in eyes with central serous chorioretinopathy. Retina. 2013;33(2):296–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Behnia M, Khabazkhoob M, Aliakbari S, Abadi AE, Hashemi H, Pourvahidi P. Improvement in visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in patients with central serous chorioretinopathy after macular subthreshold laser therapy. Retina. 2013;33(2):324–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Arora S, Sridharan P, Arora T, Chhabra M, Ghosh B. Subthreshold diode micropulse laser versus observation in acute central serous chorioretinopathy. Clin Exp Optom. 2019;102(1):79–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kaymak H, Funk S, Fricke A, Fulga R, Klabe K, Seitz B, et al. Efficacy of nanosecond laser treatment in central serous chorioretinopathy with and without atrophy of retinal pigment epithelium. Int J Retina Vitreous. 2020;6:11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mrejen S, Balaratnasingam C, Kaden TR, Bottini A, Dansingani K, Bhavsar KV, et al. Long-term visual outcomes and causes of vision loss in chronic central serous chorioretinopathy. Ophthalmology. 2019;126(4):576–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Daruich A, Matet A, Marchionno L, De Azevedo JD, Ambresin A, Mantel I, et al. Acute central serous chorioretinopathy: factors influencing episode duration. Retina. 2017;37(10):1905–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Borrelli E, Battista M, Sacconi R, Gelormini F, Querques L, Grosso D, et al. OCT risk factors for 3-year development of macular complications in eyes with “resolved” chronic central serous chorioretinopathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2021;223:129–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sramek C, Mackanos M, Spitler R, Leung LS, Nomoto H, Contag CH, et al. Non-damaging retinal phototherapy: dynamic range of heat shock protein expression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(3):1780–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Arsan A, Kanar HS, Sonmez A. Visual outcomes and anatomic changes after sub-threshold micropulse yellow laser (577-nm) treatment for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy: long-term follow-up. Eye. 2018;32(4):726–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Prasuhn M, Miura Y, Tura A, Rommel F, Kakkassery V, Sonntag S, et al. Influence of retinal microsecond pulse laser treatment in central serous chorioretinopathy: a short-term optical coherence tomography angiography study. J Clin Med. 2021;10(11):2418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. van Dijk EHC, Fauser S, Breukink MB, Blanco-Garavito R, Groenewoud JMM, Keunen JEE, et al. Half-dose photodynamic therapy versus high-density subthreshold micropulse laser treatment in patients with chronic central serous chorioretinopathy: the PLACE trial. Ophthalmology. 2018;125(10):1547–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Battaglia Parodi M, Iacono P. Re: van Dijk et al. Half-dose photodynamic therapy versus high-density subthreshold micropulse laser treatment in patients with chronic central serous chorioretinopathy: the PLACE trial (Ophthalmology. 2018;125:1547–1555). Ophthalmology. 2019;126(4):e29-e30.

  25. Warrow DJ, Hoang QV, Freund KB. Pachychoroid pigment epitheliopathy. Retina. 2013;33(8):1659–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Borrelli E, Sarraf D, Freund KB, Sadda SR. OCT angiography and evaluation of the choroid and choroidal vascular disorders. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2018;67:30–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Maruko I, Iida T, Sugano Y, Ojima A, Sekiryu T. Subfoveal choroidal thickness in fellow eyes of patients with central serous chorioretinopathy. Retina. 2011;31(8):1603–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Maruko I, Iida T, Sugano Y, Ojima A, Ogasawara M, Spaide RF. Subfoveal choroidal thickness after treatment of central serous chorioretinopathy. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(9):1792–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Faghihi H, Mohammadzadeh V, Nabavi A, Faghihi S, Kadivar S, Ghassemi F. Oral mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists: choroidal parameters changes using OCT in central serous chorioretinopathy. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2019;50(11):726–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ho M, Lai FHP, Ng DSC, Iu LPL, Chen LJ, Mak ACY, et al. Analysis of choriocapillaris perfusion and choroidal layer changes in patients with chronic central serous chorioretinopathy randomised to micropulse laser or photodynamic therapy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2021;105(4):555–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Brandl C, Helbig H, Gamulescu MA. Choroidal thickness measurements during central serous chorioretinopathy treatment. Int Ophthalmol. 2014;34(1):7–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Singh SR, Iovino C, Zur D, Masarwa D, Iglicki M, Gujar R, et al. Central serous chorioretinopathy imaging biomarkers. Br J Ophthalmol. 2022;106(4):553–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nicholson B, Noble J, Forooghian F, Meyerle C. Central serous chorioretinopathy: update on pathophysiology and treatment. Surv Ophthalmol. 2013;58(2):103–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mohabati D, van Rijssen TJ, van Dijk EH, Luyten GP, Missotten TO, Hoyng CB, et al. Clinical characteristics and long-term visual outcome of severe phenotypes of chronic central serous chorioretinopathy. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018;12:1061–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Guymer RH, Rosenfeld PJ, Curcio CA, Holz FG, Staurenghi G, Freund KB, et al. Incomplete retinal pigment epithelial and outer retinal atrophy in age-related macular degeneration: classification of atrophy meeting report 4. Ophthalmology. 2020;127(3):394–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kulikov AN, Maltsev DS, Burnasheva MA, Chhablani J. Dark-field scanning laser ophthalmoscopy for prediction of central serous chorioretinopathy responsiveness to laser therapy. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2021;33(4):461–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Isik MU, Degirmenci MFK, Saglik A. Efficacy of the subthreshold micropulse yellow wavelength laser photostimulation in the treatment of chronic central serous chorioretinopathy. Int J Ophthalmol. 2020;13(9):1404–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Gerendas BS, Hecht A, Kundi M, Waldstein SM, Deak G, Simader C, et al. Choroidal line scan measurements in swept-source optical coherence tomography as surrogates for volumetric thickness assessment. Am J Ophthalmol. 2016;162(150–8): e1.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Research was supported by Zhejiang Natural Science Foundation Project of China (No. LY18H120001), National Natural Youth Science Foundation Project of China (No. 31500795) and Zhejiang University Foundation Project (No. 2020–518052-0054).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eye Center, Second Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, No.88, Jiefang Road, Hangzhou, 310009, China

    Fang Zheng, Jingliang He, Zhitao Su, Ye Liu, Yufeng Xu & Panpan Ye

  2. Guangdong Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Guangzhou, China

    Lei Liu

Authors
  1. Fang Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jingliang He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhitao Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ye Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yufeng Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lei Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Panpan Ye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

FZ designed the study, collected and interpreted the data, drafted the initial manuscript, and revised the manuscript. JLH collected and interpreted the data, and critical reviewed the manuscript. ZTS, YL, and YFX collected the data, and critical revised the manuscript. LL performed statistical analysis and critical revised the manuscript. PPY designed the study, supervised data collection and data interpretation, critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Panpan Ye.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The need for written informed consent was waived the Institutional Review Board of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University because of the retrospective design and the use of de-identified patient data.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare they have no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zheng, F., He, J., Su, Z. et al. OCT biomarkers related to subthreshold micropulse laser treatment effect in central serous chorioretinopathy. BMC Ophthalmol 22, 252 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-022-02472-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-022-02472-1

Keywords

BMC Ophthalmology

ISSN: 1471-2415

Contact us