PURPOSE: To describe Turkish patients with Fuchs uveitis syndrome (FUS). DESIGN: Retrospective observational case series. METHODS: We reviewed the records of 172 patients with FUS seen at Istanbul University, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Department of Ophthalmology, between January 1995 and July 2007. The main outcome measures were demographic features, clinical findings at presentation, laser flare photometry values, risk of new complications, and rate of decreased vision. RESULTS: The mean age was 29.5 + 8.4 years. Male-to-female ratio was 1:1.3. Nine patients (5.2%) had bilateral involvement. The diagnosis of FUS had been made in only 10 of 115 (8.7%) referrals. Clinical findings at presentation included diffuse keratic precipitates (medium-sized round in 74.6%, fine-stellate in 22.1%), anterior chamber cells (74%), diffuse iris atrophy without hypochromia (48.6%), heterochromia (39.8%), iris nodules (32%), cataract/pseudophakia (69.1%), vitreous cells (71.8%), elevated intraocular pressure (12.7%), and chorioretinal scars (7.7%). The mean flare was 8.4 + 3.1 photons/ms in eyes with FUS and 3.7 + 0.8 photons/ms in the fellow eyes (P < .001). Hyperfluorescence of the optic disc was the only fluorescein angiographic finding, detected in 7 of 32 eyes (22%). Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated risks of cataract formation and intraocular pressure elevation as 42% and 17%, respectively, at 4 years. The rate of decreased visual acuity by 2 lines or more was 0.06/eye-year. CONCLUSIONS: The referral patterns suggest that FUS is frequently misdiagnosed in Turkish patients. Diffuse medium-sized round keratic precipitates, low flare readings, iris stromal atrophy without hypochromia, and vitreous opacities in the absence of macular edema are more often helpful clues to the diagnosis than heterochromia.
PURPOSE: To describe Turkish patients with Fuchs uveitis syndrome (FUS). DESIGN: Retrospective observational case series. METHODS: We reviewed the records of 172 patients with FUS seen at Istanbul University, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Department of Ophthalmology, between January 1995 and July 2007. The main outcome measures were demographic features, clinical findings at presentation, laser flare photometry values, risk of new complications, and rate of decreased vision. RESULTS: The mean age was 29.5 + 8.4 years. Male-to-female ratio was 1:1.3. Nine patients (5.2%) had bilateral involvement. The diagnosis of FUS had been made in only 10 of 115 (8.7%) referrals. Clinical findings at presentation included diffuse keratic precipitates (medium-sized round in 74.6%, fine-stellate in 22.1%), anterior chamber cells (74%), diffuse iris atrophy without hypochromia (48.6%), heterochromia (39.8%), iris nodules (32%), cataract/pseudophakia (69.1%), vitreous cells (71.8%), elevated intraocular pressure (12.7%), and chorioretinal scars (7.7%). The mean flare was 8.4 + 3.1 photons/ms in eyes with FUS and 3.7 + 0.8 photons/ms in the fellow eyes (P < .001). Hyperfluorescence of the optic disc was the only fluorescein angiographic finding, detected in 7 of 32 eyes (22%). Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated risks of cataract formation and intraocular pressure elevation as 42% and 17%, respectively, at 4 years. The rate of decreased visual acuity by 2 lines or more was 0.06/eye-year. CONCLUSIONS: The referral patterns suggest that FUS is frequently misdiagnosed in Turkish patients. Diffuse medium-sized round keratic precipitates, low flare readings, iris stromal atrophy without hypochromia, and vitreous opacities in the absence of macular edema are more often helpful clues to the diagnosis than heterochromia.