![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Aim
To assess the diagnostic value of brain magnetic resonance imaging (bMRI) for the etiological diagnosis of uveitis and to establish predictive factors associated with its advantageous use.
Methods
Retrospective study on all patients with de novo uveitis who were referred to our tertiary hospital and who underwent a bMRI between 2003 and 2018.
Results
bMRI was contributive in 19 out of 402 cases (5%), among patients with a contributive bMRI, 68% had neurological signs. Univariate analysis established that neurological signs (p < .001), granulomatous uveitis (p = .003), retinal vasculitis (p = .002), and intermediate uveitis (p < .001) were all significantly associated with a contributive bMRI. Multivariate analysis confirms the significant association of neurological signs (p < .001) and intermediate uveitis (p = .01).
Conclusion
bMRI appears to be a relevant exam in specific cases; intermediate/posterior uveitis or panuveitis accompanied by neurological signs, retinal vasculitis, or in patients older than 40, to rule out an oculocerebral lymphoma.
Abbreviations
ACE: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme; bMRI: Magnetic Resonance Imaging; CBC: Complete Blood cell Count; BMRI: Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging; CT: Computerized Tomography; MS: Multiple Sclerosis; NS: Neurological Signs; OCL: Oculocerebral Lymphoma; RIS: Radiologically Isolated Syndrome
Contributors
NC, PS, TM, and AG were the principal investigators who conceived and designed the study. NC and RB collected data. SK performed statistical analysis. All authors interpreted the data and approved the manuscript. NC and AG drafted the manuscript. PS, TM, YJ, SK, and LK revised the manuscript.
Disclosure statement
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.
Ethical approval
This study was approved by the ethics committee of the French Society of Ophtalmology (IRB 00008855 Société Française d’Ophtalmologie IRB#1).
Supplementary material
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website.