Comparison of Visual Acuity and Automated Perimetry Findings in Patients With Neuromyelitis Optica or Multiple Sclerosis After Single or Multiple Attacks of Optic Neuritis
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
53
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2012
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
Autores
RAMOS, Renata de Iracema P.
FALCOCHIO, Carolina
Citação
JOURNAL OF NEURO-OPHTHALMOLOGY, v.32, n.2, p.102-106, 2012
Resumo
Objective: To review the clinical characteristics of patients with neuromyelitis optica (NMO) and to compare their visual outcome with those of patients with optic neuritis (ON) and multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods: Thirty-three patients with NMO underwent neuro-ophthalmic evaluation, including automated perimetry along with 30 patients with MS. Visual function in both groups was compared overall and specifically for eyes after a single episode of ON. Results: Visual function and average visual field (VF) mean deviation were significantly worse in eyes of patients with NMO. After a single episode of ON, the VF was normal in only 2 of 36 eyes of patients with NMO compared to 17 of 35 eyes with MS (P < 0.001). The statistical analysis indicated that after a single episode of ON, the odds ratio for having NMO was 6.0 (confidence interval [CI]: 1.6-21.9) when VF mean deviation was worse than -20.0 dB while the odds ratio for having MS was 16.0 (CI: 3.6-68.7) when better than -3.0 dB. Conclusion: Visual outcome was significantly worse in NMO than in MS. After a single episode of ON, suspicion of NMO should be raised in the presence of severe residual VF deficit with automated perimetry and lowered in the case of complete VF recovery.
Palavras-chave
Referências
- ALDIN ASN, 1990, J NEUROL SCI, V100, P137, DOI 10.1016/0022-510X(90)90024-H
- BECK RW, 1993, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V111, P773
- Collongues N, 2010, NEUROLOGY, V74, P736, DOI 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181d31e35
- Fazio R, 2009, MULT SCLER, V15, P1153, DOI 10.1177/1352458509106851
- Kalluri SR, 2010, ARCH NEUROL-CHICAGO, V67, P1201, DOI 10.1001/archneurol.2010.269
- KELTNER JL, 1993, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V111, P231
- KELTNER JL, 1993, CONTROL CLIN TRIALS, V14, P143, DOI 10.1016/0197-2456(93)90016-7
- Lana-Peixoto MA, 2008, ARQ NEURO-PSIQUIAT, V66, P120
- Lennon VA, 2004, LANCET, V364, P2106, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17551-X
- McDonald WI, 2001, ANN NEUROL, V50, P121, DOI 10.1002/ana.1032
- Merle H, 2007, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V114, P810, DOI 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.06.060
- Nakajima H, 2010, BMC NEUROL, V10, DOI 10.1186/1471-2377-10-45
- Papais-Alvarenga RM, 2002, J NEUROL NEUROSUR PS, V73, P429, DOI 10.1136/jnnp.73.4.429
- Ratchford JN, 2009, NEUROLOGY, V73, P302, DOI 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181af78b8
- Weinshenker BG, 2007, ARCH NEUROL-CHICAGO, V64, P899, DOI 10.1001/archneur.64.6.899
- Wingerchuk DM, 1999, NEUROLOGY, V53, P1107
- Wingerchuk DM, 2006, NEUROLOGY, V66, P1485, DOI 10.1212/01.wnl.0000216139.44259.74