RESUMEN
Purpose@#To compare differences between the original criteria for diagnosis of ocular sarcoidosis (OS) (first International Workshop for OS [IWOS] 2009) and the revised criteria (sixth IWOS 2017), and their clinical usefulness when assessing OS in Korean patients. @*Methods@#We analyzed patients with suspected OS who visited our tertiary referral ophthalmological and pulmonary clinic from 2007 to 2018. We diagnosed patients using both sets of criteria. Blood test and biopsy data (collected by physicians) and slit-lamp, fundus, and fluorescein angiography data (collected by ophthalmologists) were reviewed. @*Results@#Thirty-four patients were diagnosed using both criteria. Of 32 patients who underwent biopsies, 31 had OS (96.87%). Using either set of criteria, 31 patients were diagnosed with definite OS and two with presumed OS. One patient diagnosed with possible OS using the previous criteria was diagnosed with presumed OS using the revised criteria. The new criteria add the lysozyme level, the CD4/CD8 ratio, and positron emission tomography imaging data to the old criteria and add the descriptors “presumed OS” and “probable OS”. There is no need to use the revised criteria in Korea; the biopsy and imaging data are adequately diagnostic. @*Conclusions@#IWOS revised the OS diagnostic criteria by adding new parameters. However, this was unnecessary for Korea, where the biopsy and imaging data are adequately diagnostic.
RESUMEN
Purpose@#To compare differences between the original criteria for diagnosis of ocular sarcoidosis (OS) (first International Workshop for OS [IWOS] 2009) and the revised criteria (sixth IWOS 2017), and their clinical usefulness when assessing OS in Korean patients. @*Methods@#We analyzed patients with suspected OS who visited our tertiary referral ophthalmological and pulmonary clinic from 2007 to 2018. We diagnosed patients using both sets of criteria. Blood test and biopsy data (collected by physicians) and slit-lamp, fundus, and fluorescein angiography data (collected by ophthalmologists) were reviewed. @*Results@#Thirty-four patients were diagnosed using both criteria. Of 32 patients who underwent biopsies, 31 had OS (96.87%). Using either set of criteria, 31 patients were diagnosed with definite OS and two with presumed OS. One patient diagnosed with possible OS using the previous criteria was diagnosed with presumed OS using the revised criteria. The new criteria add the lysozyme level, the CD4/CD8 ratio, and positron emission tomography imaging data to the old criteria and add the descriptors “presumed OS” and “probable OS”. There is no need to use the revised criteria in Korea; the biopsy and imaging data are adequately diagnostic. @*Conclusions@#IWOS revised the OS diagnostic criteria by adding new parameters. However, this was unnecessary for Korea, where the biopsy and imaging data are adequately diagnostic.