Peripheral Lesion Finding Discrepancies between Ultra-Widefield and Simulated 50° Fluorescein Angiography in Uveitis
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: With the advance of ultra-widefield fundus imaging, its usefulness for fluorescein angiography study compared to the conventional (50°) for uveitis management is not fully studied. We aimed to compare ultra-widefield fluorescein angiography (UWFFA) and simulated conventional (50°) FA in terms of peripheral fundus findings and its correlation with clinical activity and therapeutic decision changes in uveitis cases.
Methods: We performed a descriptive retrospective study in uveitis patients who underwent UWFFA (Optos P200DTx California) in March-May 2021. We compared the presence of peripheral abnormalities between UWFFA images and its simulated 50° FA. We correlated them with clinical uveitis activities and therapeutic decision changes by two uveitis experts.
Results: We included 12 uveitis patients and found that 44.4% of peripheral vascular leakage, 83.3% of the peripheral lesion, and 100% of peripheral neovascularization in UWFFA were missed in simulated 50° FA. From 5 clinically inactive patients, 4 out of 5 were assessed as active uveitis on simulated 50° FA interpretation, and all the inactive patients were active uveitis based on UWFFA. 1 out of 12 had a diagnosis and therapeutic changes after UWFFA.
Conclusions: We found more peripheral findings in UWFFA than in conventional ones. This discrepancy could alter clinical activity and therapy decisions, and long-term studies are needed to assess the clinical benefit.
Keywords
: fluorescein angiography, ultra-widefield fluorescein angiography, simulated 50° fluorescein angiography, uveitis, peripheral finding
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
References
2. Biswas J. Epidemiology and pathogenesis of uveitis: A review. Indian J Inflamm Res. 2018;1(1):1–9.
3. Pecen PE, Petro KF, Baynes K, Ehlers JP, Lowder CY, Srivastava SK. Peripheral Findings and Retinal Vascular Leakage on Ultra-Widefield Fluorescein Angiography in Patients with Uveitis. Ophthalmol Retin. 2017;1(5):428–34.
4. Update C. Retinal Imaging: Choosing the Right Method. Retina. 2014;29–31.
5. Gupta V, Al-Dhibi HA, Arevalo JF. Retinal imaging in uveitis. Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2014;28(2):95–103.
6. Witmer MT, Kiss S. Wide-field Imaging of the Retina. Surv Ophthalmol. 2013;58(2):143–54.
7. Chi Y, Guo C, Peng Y, Qiao L, Yang L. A Prospective, Observational Study on the Application of Ultra-Wide-Field Angiography in the Evaluation and Management of Patients with Anterior Uveitis. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0122749.
8. Karampelas M, Sim DA, Chu C, Carreno E, Keane PA, Zarranz-Ventura J, et al. Quantitative analysis of peripheral vasculitis, ischemia, and vascular leakage in uveitis using ultra-widefield fluorescein angiography. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015;159(6):1161-1168.e1.
9. Bhaleeya SD, Davis J. Imaging retinal vascular changes in uveitis. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2012;52(4):83–96.
10. Venkat Ahmad SS. Automated measurement of leakage on wide-field angiography in the assessment of retinal vasculitis. J Ophthalmic Inflamm Infect. 2020;10(1):4.
11. Leung E. Cystoid Macular Edema and Peripheral Vascular Leakage on Ultra-Wide Field Fluorescein Angiography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53(14):2071–2071.
12. Campbell JP, Leder HA, Sepah YJ, Gan T, Dunn JP, Hatef E, et al. Wide-field Retinal Imaging in the Management of Noninfectious Posterior Uveitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154(5):908-911.e2.
13. Nicholson BP, Nigam D, Miller D, Agrón E, Dalal M, Jacobs-El N, et al. Comparison of wide-field fluorescein angiography and 9-field montage angiography in uveitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;157(3):673–7.
14. Kang JWYSY. Analysis of peripheral vascular staining in anterior and intermediate uveitis using ultra-widefield fluorescein angiography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017;58:5451.