Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmology

Journal Information
ISSN / EISSN : 1070-8022 / 1536-5166
Total articles ≅ 4,134
Current Coverage
Archived in

Latest articles in this journal

Felix F. Kung, Timothy T. Xu, Jacqueline A. Leavitt, Victoria I. Lossen, Kevin E. Lai, Melissa W. Ko, M. Tariq Bhatti,
Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmology;

Background: The use of remote interpretation of data has risen in neuro-ophthalmology to increase efficiency and maintain social distancing due to the coronavirus disease-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study is to characterize the use and efficiency of remote interpretation of visual fields (VFs) in an academic center and to determine how often the VF interpretation was consistent with the patient's clinical history and imaging at the time of the consult. Methods: This is a retrospective study at a single academic center that enrolled all patients receiving a remote interpretation of VF from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012. Data were collected regarding the referring department, indication for the VF, interpretation of the VF and comparison with any prior VFs, any associated interventions with the VF, and available follow-up VFs. The main outcome measures included 1) characterizing the use of remote VF interpretations and 2) how many remote VF interpretation results were consistent with the referring diagnosis based on the patient's clinical history and imaging. Results: One hundred eighty patients received remote interpretation of VFs. The most frequent referring departments were endocrinology (79; 44%), neurology (51; 28%), and neurosurgery (43; 24%). The VF indications included parasellar lesion (107; 59%), seizure disorder (26; 14%), meningioma (19; 11%), vascular lesion (11; 6%), and others (17; 9%). There were 78 patients (43%) that had an intervention before the VF, whereas 49 (27%) were preoperative VFs. Eighty-seven (48%) of the VFs were interpreted as abnormal. Of all the 180 remote interpretation of VFs, 156 (87%) had VF interpretations that were consistent with the clinical question posed by the referring provider based on clinical history and imaging. Among the other 24 remote VF interpretations (13% of total remote VF interpretations), there was no clear interpretation because of either additional unexpected VF defects (n = 5, 21%), VF defect mismatch (n = 6, 25%), or unreliable VFs (n = 13, 54%). The median wait time for patients receiving remote VF interpretations was 1 day. Conclusions: Remote interpretation of VFs was most often requested by endocrinology, neurology, and neurosurgery and could be performed very quickly. The most common indications were parasellar lesions, and just less than half of patients receiving remote VF interpretations had a prior intervention. A majority of remote VF interpretations were able to answer the clinical question, given the patient's clinical history and imaging. Remote interpretation of VFs may thus offer referring departments a more efficient method of obtaining VF interpretations than in-office neuro-ophthalmology examinations.
Brianna C. Landis, Amanda E. Brooks, Kathleen B. Digre,
Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmology;

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), emerged in December 2019 and became a devastating pandemic. Although its respiratory effects can be deadly and debilitating, it can lead to other systemic disorders, such as those causing eye pain and headache. This literature review aims to describe presentations of eye pain and headache in relation to COVID-19, with an emphasis on how these disorders help us to understand the pathophysiology of COVID-19. Evidence Acquisition: Literature was mined from the PubMed database using the key terms: “eye pain,” “conjunctivitis,” “episcleritis,” “optic neuritis,” “migraine,” and “headache” in conjunction with “COVID-19” and “SARS-CoV-2.” With the exception of general background pathology, articles that predated 2006 were excluded. Case reports, literature reviews, and meta-analyses were all included. Where SARS-CoV-2 research was deficient, pathology of other known viruses was considered. Reports of ocular manifestations of vision loss in the absence of eye pain were excluded. The primary search was conducted in June 2021. Results: The literature search led to a focused review of COVID-19 associated with conjunctivitis, episcleritis, scleritis, optic neuritis, and myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein–associated optic neuritis. Four distinct COVID-19–related headache phenotypes were identified and discussed. Conclusions: Eye pain in the setting of COVID-19 presents as conjunctivitis, episcleritis, scleritis, or optic neuritis. These presentations add to a more complete picture of SARS-CoV-2 viral transmission and mechanism of host infection. Furthermore, eye pain during COVID-19 may provide evidence of hypersensitivity-type reactions, neurovirulence, and incitement of either novel or subclinical autoimmune processes. In addition, investigation of headaches associated with COVID-19 demonstrated 4 distinct phenotypes that follow third edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders categories: headaches associated with personal protective equipment, migraine, tension-type headaches, and COVID-19–specific headache. Early identification of headache class could assist in predicting the clinical course of disease. Finally, investigation into the COVID-19–associated headache phenotype of those with a history of migraine may have broader implications, adding to a more general understanding of migraine pathology.
, Gaelle Clavel, Julien Savatovsky, Catherine Vignal, Thomas Senè, Frédérique Charbonneau, Kevin Zuber, Augustin Lecler, Rabih Hage
Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmology;

Background: Giant cell arteritis (GCA) is a vasculitis often revealed by visual signs. Diagnosis is challenging and urgent. Retinal angiography (RA) and MRI allow effective diagnosis. We compared those and proposed an imaging-based approach to diagnose GCA in ophthalmological practice. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study based on the data collected from patients suspected to have GCA on ophthalmological findings. Fluorescein (FA) and indocyanine green (ICG) RAs and MRI were performed and compared with final diagnosis. Results: Among the 41 patients included, 25 were diagnosed with GCA. Sensitivities and specificities of FA and ICG were not different. MRI showed a higher sensitivity and specificity. The approach consisting in performing RA followed by MRI provided a better accuracy. Conclusion: Our study shows that RA can be supplemented by MRI in a specialized center to provide the most accurate diagnosis in GCA revealed by visual signs.
Back to Top Top