2003
DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9394(03)00223-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of lesion size, visual acuity, and lesion composition on visual acuity change with and without verteporfin therapy for choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration: TAP and VIP report no. 1

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
35
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 255 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
2
35
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although these treatments are helpful in reducing the risk of visual deterioration, they only improve vision in 6–33% of patients [3,4]. In addition, patients often exhibit AMD recurrence and require repeated treatments.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although these treatments are helpful in reducing the risk of visual deterioration, they only improve vision in 6–33% of patients [3,4]. In addition, patients often exhibit AMD recurrence and require repeated treatments.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another possibility is reduction in laser focus size through reduction of the healthy retina margin to 500 μm, based on a major finding that lesion size is the most important prognostic factor of post-treatment visual acuity, and this closely correlates with laser focus size (in our case the diameter of laser focus was 4900 μm). A lower concentration of verteporfin can be achieved through an extension of the period between drug administration and laser exposure [15]. …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…PDT was suggested for ARMD patients with predominantly classic CNV [3]. Smaller (≤4.0 disk areas minimally classic and occult CNV with no classic lesions had similar VA outcomes as those observed in predominantly classic lesions [18]. However, until now, government-funded TTT is still one of the options available to ARMD patients with subfoveal CNV, especially for the patients with lower socioeconomic status [19, 20].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%