Multiple sclerosis and related disorders · 2023
Acute optic neuritis: What are the clues to the aetiological diagnosis in real life?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Deschamps Romain, Shor Natalia, Vignal Catherine, Guillaume Jessica, Bensa Caroline, Lecler Augustin, Marignier Romain, Vasseur Vivien, Papeix Caroline, Boudot de la Motte Marine, Lamirel Cedric
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Previous cross-sectional studies have reported distinct clinical and radiological features among the different acute optic neuritis (ON) aetiologies. Nevertheless, these reports often included the same number of patients in each group, not taking into account the disparity in frequencies of ON aetiologies in a real-life setting and thus, it remains unclear what are the truly useful features for distinguishing the different ON causes. To determine whether clinical evaluation, ophthalmological assessment including the optical coherence tomography (OCT), CSF analysis, and MRI imaging may help to discriminate the different causes of acute ON in a real-life cohort.
METHODS: In this prospective monocentric study, adult patients with recent acute ON (<1 month) underwent evaluation at baseline and 1 and 12 months, including, high- and low-contrast visual acuity, visual field assessment and OCT measurements, baseline CSF analysis and MRI.
RESULTS: Among 108 patients, 71 (65.7%) had multiple sclerosis (MS), 19 (17.6%) had idiopathic ON, 13 (12.0%) and 5 (4.6%) had myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein and aquaporin-4 antibodies, at last follow up respectively.At baseline, the distribution of bilateral ON, CSF-restricted oligoclonal bands, optic perineuritis, optic nerve length lesions and positive dissemination in space and dissemination in time criteria on MRI were significantly different between the four groups (p <0.001). No significant difference in visual acuity nor inner retinal layer thickness was found between the different ON aetiologies.
CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective study, bilateral visual involvement, CSF and MRI results are the most useful clues in distinguishing the different aetiologies of acute ON, whereas ophthalmological assessments including OCT measurements revealed no significant difference between the aetiologies.
METHODS: In this prospective monocentric study, adult patients with recent acute ON (<1 month) underwent evaluation at baseline and 1 and 12 months, including, high- and low-contrast visual acuity, visual field assessment and OCT measurements, baseline CSF analysis and MRI.
RESULTS: Among 108 patients, 71 (65.7%) had multiple sclerosis (MS), 19 (17.6%) had idiopathic ON, 13 (12.0%) and 5 (4.6%) had myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein and aquaporin-4 antibodies, at last follow up respectively.At baseline, the distribution of bilateral ON, CSF-restricted oligoclonal bands, optic perineuritis, optic nerve length lesions and positive dissemination in space and dissemination in time criteria on MRI were significantly different between the four groups (p <0.001). No significant difference in visual acuity nor inner retinal layer thickness was found between the different ON aetiologies.
CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective study, bilateral visual involvement, CSF and MRI results are the most useful clues in distinguishing the different aetiologies of acute ON, whereas ophthalmological assessments including OCT measurements revealed no significant difference between the aetiologies.