4.1 Article

Ocular Toxoplasmosis Presenting With Focal Retinal Nerve Fiber Atrophy Simulating Glaucoma

Journal

JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA
Volume 18, Issue 2, Pages 129-131

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e318179f83f

Keywords

retinal nerve fiber layer; toxoplasmosis; optic atrophy; optical coherence tomography; Heidelberg retinal tomography; scanning laser polarimetry; visual field defect

Categories

Funding

  1. Maltz Family Endowment for Glaucoma Research, Cleveland, OH
  2. Mr Barney Donnelley, Palm Beach, FL
  3. The Kessel Foundation, Bergenfield. NJ
  4. NIFI [R01 EY08684]
  5. Research to Prevent Blindness, New York, NY

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: We describe a patient with ocular hypertension and nonglaucomatous retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) atrophy associated with an ocular toxoplasmosis retinal lesion. Patient and Method: Single case report. Results: An RNFL defect was identified adjacent to a circumscribed pigmented chorioretinal lesion superior to the macular region. The optic disc showed a prominent central cup without focal neural rim atrophy. Red-free photography and RNFL imaging using optical coherence tomography and scanning laser polarimetry showed corresponding focal RNFL atrophy. The toxoplasmosis lesion was characterized by an apparent full thickness disruption in retinal architecture, including the retinal ganglion cell layer, using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Conclusions: Nonglaucomatous retinal lesions may simulate glaucomatous RNFL atrophy and visual field loss, particularly when focal damage to the retinal ganglion cells occurs. Careful inspection of the retina and optic disc, with attention to the integrity of the neural rim, and analysis of the pattern of RNFL loss in proximity to a retinal lesion may enable the clinician to differentiate glaucomatous and nonglaucomatous pathogenic mechanisms.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available