Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2024
EXPLORING THE CHALLENGES OF DISTINGUISHING PUNCTATE INNER CHOROIDOPATHY FROM MULTIFOCAL CHOROIDITIS AND PANUVEITIS.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Park Hyo Song, Kang Hyun Goo, Kim Yong Joon, Choi Eun Young, Lee Junwon, Byeon Suk Ho, Kim Sung Soo, Lee Christopher Seungkyu
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This retrospective case series aimed to assess the concordance between clinical diagnoses of punctate inner choroidopathy and multifocal choroiditis and panuveitis (MCP) using the 2021 Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature Working Group criteria.
METHODS: Using the medical records of the patients, the authors reevaluated 100 eyes of 75 patients with idiopathic multifocal chorioretinal inflammatory lesions based on Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature criteria and compared the result with the clinical diagnosis.
RESULTS: Of 100 eyes, 29 eyes (29%) were diagnosed as punctate inner choroidopathy and 15 eyes (15%) were diagnosed as MCP using Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature criteria, and 56 (56%) eyes could not be diagnosed as either. Clinically diagnosed punctate inner choroidopathy eyes were significantly more myopic than the clinically diagnosed MCP eyes (mean spherical equivalent -6.65 ± 4.63 vs. -3.85 ± 2.31, P = 0.01). Sixteen eyes with vitreous inflammation were all clinically diagnosed as MCP, but four (25%) could not be diagnosed as MCP using Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature criteria.
CONCLUSION: The existing diagnostic criteria showed limitations in capturing all clinical cases of punctate inner choroidopathy or MCP, and adding or revising criteria on features such as vitreous inflammation or myopia could be considered to enhance diagnostic accuracy.
METHODS: Using the medical records of the patients, the authors reevaluated 100 eyes of 75 patients with idiopathic multifocal chorioretinal inflammatory lesions based on Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature criteria and compared the result with the clinical diagnosis.
RESULTS: Of 100 eyes, 29 eyes (29%) were diagnosed as punctate inner choroidopathy and 15 eyes (15%) were diagnosed as MCP using Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature criteria, and 56 (56%) eyes could not be diagnosed as either. Clinically diagnosed punctate inner choroidopathy eyes were significantly more myopic than the clinically diagnosed MCP eyes (mean spherical equivalent -6.65 ± 4.63 vs. -3.85 ± 2.31, P = 0.01). Sixteen eyes with vitreous inflammation were all clinically diagnosed as MCP, but four (25%) could not be diagnosed as MCP using Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature criteria.
CONCLUSION: The existing diagnostic criteria showed limitations in capturing all clinical cases of punctate inner choroidopathy or MCP, and adding or revising criteria on features such as vitreous inflammation or myopia could be considered to enhance diagnostic accuracy.