Evidence Hub

Focal Laser Photocoagulation for Central Serous Chorioretinopathy in Under-Represented Populations: A Retrospective Case Series

Kajal Sangal, Minali Prasad, Nicole H. Siegel, Xue-Jing Chen, S. Ness, M. Subramanian

Case Reports in Ophthalmology, 2022

25 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

This case series examines visual and anatomic outcomes of focal laser photocoagulation in the treatment of central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR) with subretinal fluid (SRF) in under-represented populations. We reviewed records of 25 eyes with CSCR and SRF that underwent focal laser photocoagulation. Visual acuity (VA) and central macular thickness (CMT) were recorded prior to laser, after laser treatment, and at final follow-up and were all compared using Wilcox signed-rank tests after using Shapiro-Wilk tests to determine normality. The racial and ethnic breakdown of our cohort (n = 25) includes 64% Hispanic (n = 16), 20% black (n = 5), 12% Asian (n = 3), 4% other (n = 1). Patients were followed for a median of 15.5 months (range: 5.75–87 months) after treatment. The VA prior to laser compared to best-available VA significantly improved (p = 0.0003). Pre-laser CMT to post-laser CMT (p < 0.0001) and pre-laser CMT to final CMT (p < 0.0001) significantly improved. Excluding the one eye that developed a choroidal neovascular membrane, the pre-laser VA to final VA improved significantly (p = 0.0047) as well as the pre-laser CMT to final CMT (p < 0.0001). Of the 25 eyes, 4 had persistent SRF following laser, and of the 21 eyes with complete resolution of SRF, 2 developed recurrent SRF. Focal laser photocoagulation can significantly improve VA and CMT in CSCR with active SRF in patients who have been under-represented in prior clinical studies.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 25 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free