4.6 Article

Intermediate uveitis in children and young adults: differences in clinical course, associations and visual outcome

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 98, 期 8, 页码 1107-1111

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304589

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim Intermediate uveitis (IU) is considered to carry a considerable risk for complications and visual loss. This study compares juvenile and adult onset IU with regard to visual loss and complications. Methods Single-centre retrospective analysis of 110 consecutive children with onset of IU at the age of <= 16 years compared with 107 consecutive adult patients (17-35 years). All patients were followed for >= 1 year (mean 2.5 +/- 2.3 years). Results Average age at first uveitis diagnosis in children (65 boys; 59%) was 9.7 +/- 3.17 years and in adults was 24.3 +/- 4.92 years (36 men; 34%; p=0.003). Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in both groups was similar at first and last presentation. Compared with initial presentation, BCVA improved in 31% of children and 21% of adults during the follow-up period, while it worsened in 9% and 8.7%, respectively. Lyme disease in children (8%) and multiple sclerosis in adults (17%) were the most frequent systemic associations. Poor visual acuity at first presentation, snowbanks and vitreoretinal traction were associated with a higher risk for poor BCVA at last presentation. In children, cataract formation (OR 7.6; 95% CI 1.7 to 33.8) and macular oedema (13.6; 1.6 to 113.5) and in adults posterior synechiae (7.3; 1.8 to 30.2), cataract formation (19.02; 2.31 to 156.56), macular epiretinal membrane (5.1; 1.02 to 25.28) and retinal detachment (8.4; 1.4 to 51.2) were associated with poor BCVA during follow-up. Uveitis course was not worse if associated systemic disease was present. Conclusions IU with onset in childhood and early adulthood showed a similar visual course at intermediate follow-up. Associated diseases and complication patterns differed between children and young adults.

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