Long-term retinal imaging of a case of suspected congenital rubella infection.
Adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscopy
Cone photoreceptors
Pigmentary retinopathy
Rubella retinopathy
Journal
American journal of ophthalmology case reports
ISSN: 2451-9936
Titre abrégé: Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101679941
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2022
Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
30
11
2020
revised:
16
07
2021
accepted:
06
12
2021
entrez:
3
1
2022
pubmed:
4
1
2022
medline:
4
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Many retinal disorders present with pigmentary retinopathy, most of which are progressive conditions. Here we present over nine years of follow up on a case of stable pigmentary retinopathy that is suspected to stem from a congenital rubella infection. Parafoveal cone photoreceptors were tracked through this period to gain insight into photoreceptor disruption in this pigmentary retinopathy. The patient was examined at 8 visits spanning a total of 111 months. Examination at baseline included clinical fundus examination, full-field electroretinography (ERG), kinetic visual field assessment (Goldmann), and best corrected visual acuity; all of these except ERG were repeated at follow up visits. Imaging was performed with fundus photography, spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and confocal adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscopy (AOSLO). For the latter four time points AOSLO imaging also included split-detector imaging. There were no defects in hearing or cardiac health found in this patient. There were minimal visual deficits found at baseline, with mild rod suppression on ERG; best corrected visual acuity was 20/25 OD and 20/20 OS at baseline, which was stable throughout the follow-up period. Retinal thickness as measured by OCT was within the normal range, though foveal hypoplasia was present and outer nuclear layer thickness was slightly below the normal range at all time points. Cone density was relatively stable throughout the follow-up period. A number of cones were non-reflective when observed with confocal AOSLO imaging and density was markedly lower than expected values (foveal cone density was 43,782 cones/mm This patient appears to have a stable pigmentary retinopathy. This case is likely due to a congenital insult, rather than progressive retinal disease. This finding of stability agrees with other reports of rubella pigmentary retinopathy. Imaging with AOSLO enabled observation of two notable phenotypic features. First is the observation of dark cones, which are seen in many retinal disorders including color vision defects and degenerative retinal disease. Second, the cone density is well below what is expected - this is especially interesting as this patient has near-normal visual acuity despite this greatly decreased number of normally-waveguiding cones in the fovea.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34977425
doi: 10.1016/j.ajoc.2021.101241
pii: S2451-9936(21)00250-4
pmc: PMC8688893
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
101241Subventions
Organisme : NCRR NIH HHS
ID : C06 RR016511
Pays : United States
Organisme : NEI NIH HHS
ID : P30 EY001730
Pays : United States
Organisme : NEI NIH HHS
ID : R01 EY017607
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
J. Carroll receives research support from OptoVue, AGTC, and Meira GTx, has financial interest in Translational Imaging Innovations, and is a paid consultant for Meira GTx. The following authors have no financial disclosures: CSL, AT, HR, KS, RT, RU, MN, TBC.
Références
Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1972;70:577-614
pubmed: 4197454
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Dec 8;106(49):20948-53
pubmed: 19934058
Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2019 Oct 2;8(5):21
pubmed: 31602346
N Engl J Med. 2006 Aug 3;355(5):499
pubmed: 16885553
Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2016 Mar 11;5(2):6
pubmed: 26981328
Elife. 2019 Jul 26;8:
pubmed: 31348002
Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2017 May 10;6(3):2
pubmed: 28516000
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016 May 1;57(6):2428-42
pubmed: 27145477
Am J Hum Genet. 2013 Dec 5;93(6):1143-50
pubmed: 24290379
J Infect Dis. 2011 Jul;204 Suppl 1:S24-7
pubmed: 21666168
Arch Ophthalmol. 2006 Feb;124(2):193-8
pubmed: 16476888
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013 Aug 28;54(8):5836-47
pubmed: 23908179
Biomed Opt Express. 2011 Sep 1;2(9):2577-89
pubmed: 21991550
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006 Sep;47(9):4160-7
pubmed: 16936137
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016 Jun 1;57(7):2992-3001
pubmed: 27273598
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017 Aug 1;58(10):3950-3959
pubmed: 28785766
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Feb 01;52(1):625-34
pubmed: 20861480
Retina. 2017 Jan;37(1):124-134
pubmed: 28005720
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003 Oct;44(10):4580-92
pubmed: 14507907
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2019;1185:133-137
pubmed: 31884601
Br J Ophthalmol. 2016 Feb;100(2):278-83
pubmed: 26472404
Ophthalmol Retina. 2019 Jun;3(6):523-534
pubmed: 31174676
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014 May 20;55(7):4186-98
pubmed: 24845642
Int J Telemed Appl. 2014;2014:981312
pubmed: 25525427
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Jun 1;101(22):8461-6
pubmed: 15148406
Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep. 2017 Sep;7:14-19
pubmed: 29057371
Acta Ophthalmol. 2016 Feb;94(1):92-8
pubmed: 25996076
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017 Nov 17;66(45):1256-1260
pubmed: 29145358
Hum Mutat. 2014 Nov;35(11):1354-62
pubmed: 25168334
Biomed Opt Express. 2011 Jun 1;2(6):1757-68
pubmed: 21698035
Br J Ophthalmol. 1993 Jun;77(6):358-63
pubmed: 8318483
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016 Aug 1;57(10):3984-95
pubmed: 27479814
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014 Sep 30;55(10):6870-7
pubmed: 25270194
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012 Dec 05;53(13):8006-15
pubmed: 23139274
Exp Eye Res. 2016 Sep;150:149-65
pubmed: 27020758
J AAPOS. 2008 Dec;12(6):591-6
pubmed: 18848477
Optom Vis Sci. 2012 May;89(5):632-43
pubmed: 22504330
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014 Jun 06;55(7):4244-51
pubmed: 24906859
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016 Jul 1;57(8):3853-63
pubmed: 27447086
Open Ophthalmol J. 2012;6:125-8
pubmed: 23264840
PLoS Genet. 2021 Oct 18;17(10):e1009858
pubmed: 34662343
Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 1995 Jun;6(3):45-50
pubmed: 10150869