4.6 Article

Syphilis: Reemergence of an old adversary

期刊

OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 113, 期 11, 页码 2074-2079

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.05.048

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To describe the clinical findings in 4 patients with ocular syphilis and to provide a review of the recent rise in syphilis cases in the United States, along with a brief description of current diagnosis and treatment guidelines. Design: Retrospective, observational case series. Participants: Four consecutive patients who presented to our facility during a 6-month interval in 2005 with ocular syphilis. Methods: Review of clinical, laboratory, photographic, and angiographic records of patients with neurosyphilis who underwent intravenous penicillin G treatment. Main Outcome Measures: Resolution of signs and symptoms of ocular syphilis, including changes in visual acuity. Results: Four patients (3 male: mean age, 46 [range, 39-60 years]; 1 female: age 46 years) demonstrated cerebrospinal fluid findings consistent with neurosyphilis, as evidenced by increased leukocyte counts (> 5 white blood cells/mm(3)), and positive Venereal Disease Research Laboratory or serum fluorescent treponemal antibody absorbed tests. All 4 patients presented with a variety of clinical findings that led to a delay in diagnosis and treatment. Two patients presented with discrete placoid lesions consistent with acute syphilitic posterior placoid chorioretinitis, a manifestation typically observed among the immunocompromised. Conclusions: Despite a decade of steady decline, syphilis has reemerged in the United States with outbreaks throughout the country in the past few years. Ocular findings, including posterior placoid chorioretinitis, are important diagnostic features in the early treatment of tertiary syphilis and neurosyphilis. Ophthalmologists have the opportunity to play a key role in the early diagnosis and management of this potentially fatal disease. (c) 2006 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据