4.7 Article

Presence of Choroidal Caverns in Patients with Posterior and Panuveitis

Journal

BIOMEDICINES
Volume 11, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11051268

Keywords

choroidal caverns; indocyanine green angiography; optical coherence tomography; panuveitis; posterior uveitis; uveitis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found that choroidal caverns (CCs) may be a complication in patients with chronic non-infectious uveitis (NIU), especially in those with multifocal choroiditis (MFC) and male patients.
Choroidal caverns (CCs) have been described in association with age-related macular degeneration and pachychoroid disease. However, it is unknown if caverns are found in patients with chronic non-infectious uveitis (NIU). Herein, we evaluated patients with NIU who had optical coherence tomography and indocyanine green angiography for CCs. Clinical and demographic characteristics were extracted from the chart review. Univariate and multivariate mixed-effects logistical models were used to assess the association between clinical and demographic factors and the presence of CCs. One hundred thirty-five patients (251 eyes) met the inclusion criteria: 1 eye had anterior uveitis, 5 had intermediate uveitis, 194 had posterior uveitis, and 51 had panuveitis. The prevalence of CCs was 10%. CCs were only observed in patients with posterior and panuveitis, with a prevalence of 10.8% and 7.8%, respectively. Multifocal choroiditis (MFC) was the type of uveitis where CCs were most frequently observed, with 40% of eyes with MFC having CCs. In addition, male sex (p = 0.024) was associated with CCs. There was no significant difference in the degree of intraocular inflammation or mean subfoveal choroidal thickness between CC+ and CC- eyes. This is the first study to describe CCs in uveitis. Overall, these findings suggest that caverns may be a sequela of structural and/or vascular perturbations in the choroid from uveitis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available