You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 114 No. 9, September 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  CLINICAL SCIENCES
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (13)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Proliferative Radiation Retinopathy

James L. Kinyoun, MD; Betty S. Lawrence; William E. Barlow, PhD

Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114(9):1097-1100.


Abstract

Objectives
To compare proliferative radiation retinopathy (PRR) with nonproliferative radiation retinopathy (NPRR) and to assess the outcome of panretinal photocoagulation treatment for PRR.

Methods
We reviewed the medical records, fundus photographs, and fluorescein angiograms of 10 patients (14 eyes) with PRR, which was diagnosed in a tertiary referral center during a 20-year period. The collected data included the following: the indications for radiation treatment, radiotherapy technique used, dose and fractions of radiation, visual acuity, indications for photocoagulation treatment, photocoagulation technique used, and response to treatment. Comparisons were made with data from 17 patients (27 eyes) with NPRR, which had not progressed to PRR during the course of this study.

Results
The initial visual acuity of the 14 eyes with PRR ranged from 20/20 to hand motion; these eyes had a median visual acuity of 20/90. The initial visual acuity of the 27 eyes with NPRR ranged from 20/15 to 20/400; these eyes had a median visual acuity of 20/25. Five (36%) of the eyes with PRR and 4 (15%) of the eyes with NPRR (P=.35) had a visual acuity of 20/200 or worse. After a mean follow-up time of 75 months for the eyes with PRR and 51 months for the eyes with NPRR, the median visual acuities were 20/400 and 20/50, respectively; 12 (86%) of the 14 eyes with PRR had a visual acuity of 20/200 or worse vs 7 (26%) of the 27 eyes with NPRR (P<.007). The new vessels had resolved in 10 (91%) of the 11 eyes that were treated with panretinal photocoagulation for PRR.

Conclusions
Eyes with PRR have a poor prognosis for retaining and regaining good central vision. Panretinal photocoagulation seems to have long-term effectiveness in decreasing the proliferation of new vessels due to complications of radiation treatment.



Author Affiliations

From the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Washington, Seattle.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Increased 18F-FDG Uptake in the Posterior Ocular Bulb Is Associated with Brain Metastasis: A Retrospective Study
Nguyen et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008;191:W268-W274.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Radiation Retinopathy Following Plaque Radiotherapy for Posterior Uveal Melanoma
Gunduz et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 1999;117:609-614.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Good Visual Outcome Following Laser Therapy for Proliferative Radiation Retinopathy
Thorne and Maguire
Arch Ophthalmol 1999;117:125-126.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1996 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.