Gender variation in central serous chorioretinopathy

Daren Hanumunthadu, Elon H.C. Van Dijk, Sankeert Gangakhedkar, Abhilash Goud, Chui Ming Gemmy Cheung, Daniel Cherfan, Chintan Sarvaiya, Alay Banker, Catherine Meyerle, Camiel J. Boon, Rishi Singh, Lihteh Wu, Jay Chhablani

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Scopus citations


Background: Comparison of presentation and outcomes of central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC) between male and female subjects in different ethnic populations. Methods: Retrospective comparison between male and female subjects with CSC was completed. Demographic details, clinical presentations, imaging features and treatment outcomes were compared at baseline and at last follow-up. Results: This study included 155 male and 155 female subjects with a mean (CSD) age of 43.8 ± 10.3 and 57.0 ± 12.1 years, respectively, and a mean duration of follow-up of 8.49 ± 12.6 months. At presentation, there was no difference in visual acuity; however, visual acuity was significantly higher for female subjects at last follow-up (p = 0.02). Optical coherence tomography (OCT) analysis showed that subretinal deposits (p < 0.001), hyperreflective foci (p = 0.001), retinal pigment epithelial detachment (p = 0.01) and retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) irregularities (p = 0.03) were higher in male subjects at presentation. Angiographic analysis showed that diffuse leakage and RPE tracts were common in males (p = 0.01 and p = 0.02). No significant differences in choroidal dilatation or diffuse choroidal leakages were noted. Conclusions: Female subjects with CSC appear to have better outcomes, with less chances of diffuse RPE damage and other OCT features compared to males.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1703-1709
Number of pages7
JournalEye (Basingstoke)
Issue number11
StatePublished - Nov 1 2018

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology
  • Sensory Systems


Dive into the research topics of 'Gender variation in central serous chorioretinopathy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this