4.6 Article

Optical Coherence Tomography in the Cross Mark Diagnosis of Scleritis and Episcleritis

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 159, Issue 6, Pages 1045-1049

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2015.03.004

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Eye Center and The Eye Foundation for Research in Ophthalmology, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To describe the optical coherence tomography (OCT) findings in eyes with active anterior scleritis and compare the findings to those with episcleritis and normal controls. DESIGN: Prospective evaluation of a diagnostic test. METHODS: We included a total of 30 eyes of 30 patients with unilateral anterior scleral or episcleral inflammation. The contralateral 30 eyes with no active ocular disease served as controls. OCT was performed over the anterior sclera in the inflamed area on all cases. The OCT images were analyzed to determine the thickness of the sclera and the presence or absence of scleral hyporeflective areas representing intrascleral edema. RESULTS: There were 17 male and 13 female patients. The mean age was 43 years with an age range of 21-77 years. Eighteen patients had anterior scleritis and 12 patients had episcleritis. The mean transconjunctival scleral thickness was 747 mu m (SD +/- 68.97) with a range of 616-877 mu m in normal eyes, 882 mu m (SD +/- 87.35) with a range of 773-1089 mu m in patients with scleritis, and 825 mu m (SD +/- 85.57) with a range of 718-949 mu m in patients with episcleritis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with active anterior scleritis showed increased thickness of the sclera and presence of intrascleral hyporeflective areas of edema by OCT compared to patients with episcleritis and normal eyes. OCT adds both qualitative and quantitative information to diagnosis and monitoring of patients with scleritis. (C) 2015 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available