 |
 |

SCOREing in Retinal Venous Occlusive Disease
Rajendra S. Apte, MD, PhD
Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(9):1203-1204.
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
Retinal venous occlusive disease, including branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) and central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), is the second most common cause of severe vision loss in the United States.1-2 Vision loss in retinal venous occlusive disease can occur from macular edema, ischemia, or neovascular glaucoma. The Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion Study has demonstrated that in a subset of patients with nonischemic macular edema grid laser photocoagulation significantly reduced the risk of moderate to severe vision loss and also improved the possibility of visual gain.1 The Central Retinal Vein Occlusion Study demonstrated that for macular edema associated with CRVO grid laser photocoagulation was no better than observation.3 These studies have been used as the gold standard for providing natural history information as well as treatment paradigms in the management of BRVO and CRVO.
Over the past decade, a number of medical and surgical therapies, including . . . [Full Text of this Article] AUTHOR INFORMATION
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLES
A Randomized Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Intravitreal Triamcinolone With Observation to Treat Vision Loss Associated With Macular Edema Secondary to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion: The Standard Care vs Corticosteroid for Retinal Vein Occlusion (SCORE) Study Report 5
The SCORE Study Research Group
Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(9):1101-1114.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Randomized Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Intravitreal Triamcinolone With Standard Care to Treat Vision Loss Associated With Macular Edema Secondary to Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion: The Standard Care vs Corticosteroid for Retinal Vein Occlusion (SCORE) Study Report 6
The SCORE Study Research Group
Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(9):1115-1128.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|