AIM: To describe the clinical features of a case series of patients with unilateral vitelliform maculopathy and the results of screening BEST1 and PRPH2 for disease-causing mutations. DESIGN/ METHODS: This was a retrospective case series study of six patients ascertained over a 2-year period. Ophthalmological examination, fundus photography, autofluorescence imaging, optical coherence tomography and detailed electrophysiological assessment were undertaken. Blood samples were taken for DNA extraction and mutation screening of BEST1 and PRPH2 was performed. RESULTS: Six patients (3 men and 3 women) with unilateral vitelliform maculopathy were identified, ranging in age from 30 to 68 years. Vision in the affected eye ranged from 20/10 to 20/100. There was no clinical, retinal imaging or electrophysiological evidence of fellow eye involvement. Direct sequencing of BEST1 and PRPH2 did not reveal any disease-causing variants. CONCLUSIONS: A case series of patients is reported with an unusual unilateral vitelliform phenotype, often associated with good visual function. The patients do not have the typical characteristics associated with age-related maculopathy or any inherited macular disorders, such as Best vitelliform macular dystrophy. Molecular screening of the candidate genes BEST1 and PRPH2 revealed no mutations.
AIM: To describe the clinical features of a case series of patients with unilateral vitelliform maculopathy and the results of screening BEST1 and PRPH2 for disease-causing mutations. DESIGN/ METHODS: This was a retrospective case series study of six patients ascertained over a 2-year period. Ophthalmological examination, fundus photography, autofluorescence imaging, optical coherence tomography and detailed electrophysiological assessment were undertaken. Blood samples were taken for DNA extraction and mutation screening of BEST1 and PRPH2 was performed. RESULTS: Six patients (3 men and 3 women) with unilateral vitelliform maculopathy were identified, ranging in age from 30 to 68 years. Vision in the affected eye ranged from 20/10 to 20/100. There was no clinical, retinal imaging or electrophysiological evidence of fellow eye involvement. Direct sequencing of BEST1 and PRPH2 did not reveal any disease-causing variants. CONCLUSIONS: A case series of patients is reported with an unusual unilateral vitelliform phenotype, often associated with good visual function. The patients do not have the typical characteristics associated with age-related maculopathy or any inherited macular disorders, such as Best vitelliform macular dystrophy. Molecular screening of the candidate genes BEST1 and PRPH2 revealed no mutations.