ABSTRACT
Bilateral acute iris transillumination (BAIT) is a relatively new clinical entity characterized by bilateral acute loss of iris pigment epithelium, iris transillumination, pigment dispersion in the anterior chamber, and sphincter paralysis. We report the case of a 30-year-old male who was initially diagnosed with acute iridocyclitis in a different clinic and treated with topical and systemic corticosteroids. He was referred to our clinic to seek another opinion because his symptoms did not improve. An ocular examination revealed bilateral pigment dispersion into the anterior chamber, diffuse iris transillumination, pigment dusting on the anterior lens capsule, atonic and distorted pupils, and increased intraocular pressure, suggesting a diagnosis of BAIT rather than iridocyclitis. Clinicians should be aware of the differential diagnosis of syndromes associated with pigment dispersion from iridocyclitis to avoid aggressive anti-inflammatory therapy and detailed investigation for uveitis.
A transiluminação de íris aguda bilateral (do inglês, bilateral acute iris transillumination, BAIT) é uma entidade clínica relativamente nova, caracterizada pela perda aguda bilateral do epitélio pigmentado da íris, transiluminação iriana, dispersão de pigmentos na câmara anterior, e paralisia do esfíncter pupilar. Nós relatamos o caso de um homem de 30 anos que foi diagnosticado com iridociclite aguda e tratado com corticosteroides tópicos e sistêmicos. Ele foi encaminhado ao nosso serviço para outra opinião, porque seus sintomas não melhoram com a terapia. Um exame oftalmológico revelou dispersão bilateral de pigmentos para a câmara anterior, transiluminação difusa de íris, pigmento difusa na cápsula anterior do cristalino, pupilas atônicas e distorcidas, e um aumento da pressão intraocular, o que sugere um diagnóstico de BAIT em vez de iridociclite. Os médicos devem estar cientes do diagnóstico diferencial das síndromes associadas à dispersão de pigmento com a iridociclite para evitar a terapia antiinflamatória agressiva e investigação detalhada para uveíte.
Subject(s)
Humans , Attitude of Health Personnel , Hospitals/standards , Personnel, Hospital , Quality Assurance, Health Care , Quality Improvement , Focus Groups , Georgia , Organizational Culture , Program EvaluationSubject(s)
Humans , Male , Eye Pain/diagnosis , Iris Diseases/diagnosis , Pigmentation Disorders/diagnosisABSTRACT
Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the visual field test results in healthy children obtained via the Humphrey matrix 24‑2 threshold program and standard automated perimetry (SAP) using the Swedish interactive threshold algorithm (SITA)‑Standard 24‑2 test. Materials and Methods: This prospective study included 55 healthy children without ocular or systemic disorders who underwent both SAP and frequency doubling technology (FDT) perimetry visual field testing. Visual field test reliability indices, test duration, global indices (mean deviation [MD], and pattern standard deviation [PSD]) were compared between the 2 tests using the Wilcoxon signed‑rank test and paired t‑test. The performance of the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) 24‑2 SITA‑standard and frequency‑doubling technology Matrix 24‑2 tests between genders were compared with Mann‑Whitney U‑test. Results: Fifty‑five healthy children with a mean age of 12.2 ± 1.9 years (range from 8 years to 16 years) were included in this prospective study. The test durations of SAP and FDT were similar (5.2 ± 0.5 and 5.1 ± 0.2 min, respectively, P = 0.651). MD and the PSD values obtained via FDT Matrix were significantly higher than those obtained via SAP (P < 0.001), and fixation losses and false negative errors were significantly less with SAP (P < 0.05). A weak positive correlation between the two tests in terms of MD (r = 0.352, P = 0.008) and PSD (r = 0.329, P = 0.014) was observed. Conclusion: Children were able to complete both the visual test algorithms successfully within 6 min. However, SAP testing appears to be associated with less depression of the visual field indices of healthy children. FDT Matrix and SAP should not be used interchangeably in the follow‑up of children.