4.4 Article

Multifocal choroiditis with panuveitis and punctate inner choroidopathy - Comparison of clinical characteristics at presentation

Journal

RETINA-THE JOURNAL OF RETINAL AND VITREOUS DISEASES
Volume 27, Issue 9, Pages 1174-1179

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e318068de72

Keywords

choroiditis; posterior uveitis; panuveitis; uveitis

Categories

Funding

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY-00405, EY-13707] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To compare the clinical characteristics at presentation of multifocal choroiditis with panuveitis (MFCPU) and punctate inner choroidopathy (PIC). Methods: A cross-sectional study of 66 patients (122 eyes) with MFCPU and 13 patients (22 eyes) with PIC was carried out. Diagnosis was based solely on retinal morphology. Demographic information, visual acuity at presentation, and presence of intraocular inflammation, choroidal neovascularization (CNV), and structural complications of intraocular inflammation (including cataract, cystoid macular edema [CME], and epiretinal membrane [ERM]) were compared for the two groups. Results: The median ages at presentation of patients with MFCPU and PIC were 45 years and 29 years, respectively (P = 0.007). At presentation, patients with MFCPU had a higher frequency of structural complications, such as cataract (31.6%), CME (13.6%), and ERM (4.6%). Patients with PIC had none of these complications. Although CNV occurred more frequently in patients with PIC (PIC, 76.9%; MFCPU, 27.7%; P = 0.002), those with MFCPU were more likely to have bilateral visual impairment of 20/50 or worse (MFCPU, 20%; PIC, 0; P = 0.03). Conclusion: PIC and MFCPU appeared to have different clinical characteristics at presentation. Patients with PIC had a higher frequency of CNV at presentation but lower frequencies of structural complications from intraocular inflammation and a lower frequency of visual impairment at presentation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available