Chinese medical journal · 2013
Clinical features of retinal diseases masquerading as retrobulbar optic neuritis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Jiang Li-Bin, Shen Ce-Ying, Chen Fei, Yan Wei-Yu, Lai Timothy Y Y, Wang Ning-Li
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Managements of optic neuritis (ON) included high-dose corticosteroids or combined with systemic immunomodulatory agents. It was important to make a correct diagnosis of ON before initiation of treatment. The purpose of the study was to report and analyze the clinical features of retinal diseases in patients who were misdiagnosed as having retrobulbar ON.
METHODS: Retrospective review of 26 patients (38 eyes) initially diagnosed with retrobulbar ON but were ultimately diagnosed with retinal or macular diseases. Data obtained from fundus examination, fluorescence fundus angiography (FFA), automated static perimetry, full-field electroretinogram (ffERG), multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG), and optical coherence tomography (OCT) were evaluated.
RESULTS: Thirty-eight eyes of 26 patients were found to have misdiagnosis of retrobulbar ON, based on normal or slight abnormal fundus findings and abnormal visual evoked potentials (VEP). The mean age of the patients was 34 years and the correct diagnosis of the patients included acute zonal occult outer retinopathy (AZOOR, 15 eyes, 14 patients), occult macular dystrophy (OMD, 8 eyes, 4 patients), cone or cone-rod dystrophy (10 eyes, 5 patients), acute macular neuroretinopathy (AMNR, 3 eyes, 2 patients), and cancer-associated retinopathy (CAR, 2 eyes, 1 patient).
CONCLUSION: When attempting to diagnose retrobulbar ON in clinical practice, it is crucial to carry out necessary examinations of the retinal function and morphology to decrease misdiagnosis.
METHODS: Retrospective review of 26 patients (38 eyes) initially diagnosed with retrobulbar ON but were ultimately diagnosed with retinal or macular diseases. Data obtained from fundus examination, fluorescence fundus angiography (FFA), automated static perimetry, full-field electroretinogram (ffERG), multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG), and optical coherence tomography (OCT) were evaluated.
RESULTS: Thirty-eight eyes of 26 patients were found to have misdiagnosis of retrobulbar ON, based on normal or slight abnormal fundus findings and abnormal visual evoked potentials (VEP). The mean age of the patients was 34 years and the correct diagnosis of the patients included acute zonal occult outer retinopathy (AZOOR, 15 eyes, 14 patients), occult macular dystrophy (OMD, 8 eyes, 4 patients), cone or cone-rod dystrophy (10 eyes, 5 patients), acute macular neuroretinopathy (AMNR, 3 eyes, 2 patients), and cancer-associated retinopathy (CAR, 2 eyes, 1 patient).
CONCLUSION: When attempting to diagnose retrobulbar ON in clinical practice, it is crucial to carry out necessary examinations of the retinal function and morphology to decrease misdiagnosis.