PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to better characterize patients with multifocal choroiditis and panuveitis (MCP), punctate inner choroidopathy (PIC), multiple evanescent white dot syndrome (MEWDS), and diffuse subretinal fibrosis syndrome. The specific aim was to determine whether these disorders were different entities or part of a spectrum of diseases with similar features. METHODS: Seventy-nine patients were included in this study. Most of the patients have been followed up prospectively since July 1980 with some found retrospectively. RESULTS: Forty-one patients had MCP, 16 had PIC, 6 had diffuse subretinal fibrosis syndrome, and 16 had MEWDS. Patients with MCP had visual loss and visual field defects caused directly by visible lesions or recurrent inflammation around old lesions. In particular, clustering of lesions around the optic nerve and nasal periphery was seen in patients with MCP and appeared to be related to visual field loss. Patients with PIC also had enlarged blind spot and other field defects explained by fundus lesions. Patients with PIC and MCP did not have recurrent lesions on extended follow-up. Patients with diffuse subretinal fibrosis syndrome represented a subset of patients characterized with lesions in the posterior pole, sever scarring, and visual loss. Patients with MEWDS had the least inflammation with symmetrically distributed lesions. Minimal permanent chorioretinal scarring was seen in patients with MEWDS. Visual field defects improved in most patients with MEWDS and PIC, whereas most patients with MCP and diffuse subretinal fibrosis syndrome did not improve. CONCLUSIONS: Although enlarged blind spots are a feature of all four disorders, other clinical, angiographic, and electroretinographic evidence suggest that these are different entities.
PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to better characterize patients with multifocal choroiditis and panuveitis (MCP), punctate inner choroidopathy (PIC), multiple evanescent white dot syndrome (MEWDS), and diffuse subretinal fibrosis syndrome. The specific aim was to determine whether these disorders were different entities or part of a spectrum of diseases with similar features. METHODS: Seventy-nine patients were included in this study. Most of the patients have been followed up prospectively since July 1980 with some found retrospectively. RESULTS: Forty-one patients had MCP, 16 had PIC, 6 had diffuse subretinal fibrosis syndrome, and 16 had MEWDS. Patients with MCP had visual loss and visual field defects caused directly by visible lesions or recurrent inflammation around old lesions. In particular, clustering of lesions around the optic nerve and nasal periphery was seen in patients with MCP and appeared to be related to visual field loss. Patients with PIC also had enlarged blind spot and other field defects explained by fundus lesions. Patients with PIC and MCP did not have recurrent lesions on extended follow-up. Patients with diffuse subretinal fibrosis syndrome represented a subset of patients characterized with lesions in the posterior pole, sever scarring, and visual loss. Patients with MEWDS had the least inflammation with symmetrically distributed lesions. Minimal permanent chorioretinal scarring was seen in patients with MEWDS. Visual field defects improved in most patients with MEWDS and PIC, whereas most patients with MCP and diffuse subretinal fibrosis syndrome did not improve. CONCLUSIONS: Although enlarged blind spots are a feature of all four disorders, other clinical, angiographic, and electroretinographic evidence suggest that these are different entities.