Display options
Cite
Bouchenaki N, Herbort CP. Fuchs' Uveitis: Failure to Associate Vitritis and Disc Hyperfluorescence with the Disease is the Major Factor for Misdiagnosis and Diagnostic Delay. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2009;16(4):239-44doi: 10.4103/0974-9233.58424.
Bouchenaki, N., & Herbort, C. P. (2009). Fuchs' Uveitis: Failure to Associate Vitritis and Disc Hyperfluorescence with the Disease is the Major Factor for Misdiagnosis and Diagnostic Delay. Middle East African journal of ophthalmology, 16(4), 239-44. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-9233.58424
Bouchenaki, Nadia, and Herbort, Carl P. "Fuchs' Uveitis: Failure to Associate Vitritis and Disc Hyperfluorescence with the Disease is the Major Factor for Misdiagnosis and Diagnostic Delay." Middle East African journal of ophthalmology vol. 16,4 (2009): 239-44. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-9233.58424
Bouchenaki N, Herbort CP. Fuchs' Uveitis: Failure to Associate Vitritis and Disc Hyperfluorescence with the Disease is the Major Factor for Misdiagnosis and Diagnostic Delay. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2009 Oct;16(4):239-44. doi: 10.4103/0974-9233.58424. PMID: 20404990; PMCID: PMC2855664.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2009 Oct;16(4):239-44. doi: 10.4103/0974-9233.58424.

Fuchs' Uveitis: Failure to Associate Vitritis and Disc Hyperfluorescence with the Disease is the Major Factor for Misdiagnosis and Diagnostic Delay.

Middle East African journal of ophthalmology

Nadia Bouchenaki, Carl P Herbort

Affiliations

  1. Inflammatory and Retinal Eye Diseases, Center for Ophthalmic Specialized Care (COS); Lausanne, Switzerland.

PMID: 20404990 PMCID: PMC2855664 DOI: 10.4103/0974-9233.58424

Abstract

PURPOSE: Fuchs' uveitis is often diagnosed with substantial delay at the origin of deleterious consequences such as unnecessary treatment. The aim of the study was to analyse the type and frequency of posterior inflammatory and fluorescein angiographic signs in Fuchs' uveitis in conjunction with the other clinical signs and evaluate their respective importance in the diagnosis of the disease. In particular, diagnostic delay and erroneous diagnoses were investigated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients seen in our centers between 1995 and 2008 with the diagnosis of Fuchs' uveitis were analysed. The data collected included age, initial and final visual acuities, clinical findings at presentation, mean diagnostic delay, erroneous diagnoses, laser flare photometry values, fundus and fluorescein angiography manifestations and ocular complications.

RESULTS: One hundred and five patients were included. The mean age at diagnosis was 34 years. Twelve patients (11.4%) had bilateral involvement. The mean diagnostic delay was 3.04 +/- 4.30 years. The most frequent clinical signs were vitreous infiltration (97.40%), typical Fuchs' keratic precipitates (94.90%), crystalline lens opacities or cataract (47%), heterochromia (42.60%), ocular hypertension or glaucoma (12.80%). The mean laser flare photometry value at presentation was 9.85 +/- 6.28 ph/ms. Thirty-nine patients (37.14%) had undergone fluorescein angiography showing disc hyperfluorescence in 97.7% and peripheral retinal vascular leakage in 13.6%.

CONCLUSIONS: Fuchs' uveitis is significantly underdiagnosed likely because vitreous involvement was previously described but not commonly recognized as an association with Fuchs' uveitis in the clinician's mind and therefore has often been given a different diagnostic label. Moreover, the very frequent inflammatory signs on fluorescein angiography such as disc hyperfluorescence and more rarely peripheral retinal vascular leakage, which has not been typically associated with Fuchs' uveitis, appear to represent an additional factor leading to misdiagnosis. Such clinical findings need to be publicised in order to reduce misdiagnosis, and diagnostic delay.

Keywords: Diagnostic Delay; Disc Hyperfluorescence; Fuchs' Uveitis; Fundus Fluorescein Angiography; Laser Flare Photometry; Vitritis

References

  1. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 1994;2(3):169-76 - PubMed
  2. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2002 Jun;10(2):125-31 - PubMed
  3. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2002 Oct;9(4):239-49 - PubMed
  4. Eye (Lond). 1991;5 ( Pt 6):649-61 - PubMed
  5. Eye (Lond). 2009 Jan;23(1):79-84 - PubMed
  6. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2001 Sep;9(3):169-75 - PubMed
  7. Int Ophthalmol. 2010 Oct;30(5):511-9 - PubMed
  8. Eye (Lond). 1991;5 ( Pt 6):662-7 - PubMed
  9. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008 May;145(5):834-40 - PubMed
  10. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000 May;129(5):672-3 - PubMed
  11. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004 Jul;138(1):46-54 - PubMed
  12. Surv Ophthalmol. 1993 Jan-Feb;37(4):253-72 - PubMed
  13. Ophthalmologica. 1996;210(4):234-8 - PubMed
  14. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009 Oct;148(4):510-515.e1 - PubMed
  15. Arch Ophthalmol. 1988 Dec;106(12):1688-90 - PubMed
  16. Arch Ophthalmol. 1982 Oct;100(10):1622-6 - PubMed
  17. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2005 Dec;16(6):356-63 - PubMed
  18. Ophthalmology. 2006 Mar;113(3):473-80 - PubMed
  19. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1995 Apr;73(2):166-70 - PubMed
  20. Curr Eye Res. 1990;9 Suppl:31-4 - PubMed
  21. Ophthalmologica. 2005 Jan-Feb;219(1):21-5 - PubMed
  22. Acta Ophthalmol. 2008 Feb;86(1):58-64 - PubMed
  23. Doc Ophthalmol. 1991;78(3-4):225-35 - PubMed
  24. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006 Jan;141(1):212-214 - PubMed
  25. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2004 Dec;12(4):297-310 - PubMed
  26. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1998 Aug;76(4):405-12 - PubMed

Publication Types