RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To assess clinical factors leading to recurrent retinal detachment (RD) and characteristics of recurrence in patients with Stickler Syndrome. METHODS: Retrospective case series study of patients with clinical diagnosis of Stickler Syndrome who underwent rhegmatogenous RD repair. Recurrent RD after initial surgery was categorized as "early" if the recurrence was within 1 year or "late" if greater than 1 year. RESULTS: Thirty eyes from 22 patients underwent rhegmatogenous RD repair. For initial repair, 13 eyes underwent pars plana vitrectomy combined with scleral buckling (PPV/SB), 16 eyes underwent primary scleral buckling (SB), and 1 eye underwent pneumatic retinopexy (PnR). Recurrent RD occurred in 6 (46%) PPV/SB eyes (5 early and 1 late), 10 (63%) SB eyes (3 early and 7 late), and 0 (0%) PnR eyes (p = 0.61). PPV/SB was preferred for eyes presenting with total detachment (82%), giant retinal tears (100%), and proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) (80%). For eyes with early recurrent RD, 6 (75%) had PVR leading to recurrence. For eyes with late recurrent RD, 7 (87.5%) developed a new retinal break leading to recurrence, including 4 with a break posterior to the buckle indentation apex. At last follow-up, median LogMAR visual acuity was 0.68 for eyes with recurrent RD compared to 0.29 for eyes without recurrence (p = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Early recurrent RD was mostly caused by PVR, while late recurrent RD was mostly due to new retinal breaks. Eyes with seemingly uncomplicated rhegmatogenous RD repair with primary SB remained at high risk for late re-detachment.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe the deep phenotype of congenital corneal opacities (CCO) in patients with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2 DS) and to identify putative regions or genes that could explain the CCO. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify patients with 22q11.2 DS seen in the ophthalmology clinic of a tertiary referral children's hospital. Thirty patients were identified, with molecular confirmation. Twenty-six did not show structural anterior segment anomalies aside from posterior embryotoxon (n = 4), whereas 4 had bilateral CCO, of which 3 had preoperative images. We reviewed medical, operative, and pathology reports; anterior segment optical coherence tomography; high-frequency ultrasound; histopathologic slides; and genetic testing. To identify putative genes responsible for CCO, chromosomal breakpoints in patients with and without CCO were compared. RESULTS: In the 3 patients with preoperative imaging and CCO, a pattern of paracentral corneal opacification with central clearing accompanied by iridocorneal or keratolenticular adhesions was observed. Anterior segment optical coherence tomography and histopathologic images showed central stromal thinning with a residual structure consistent with Descemet membrane. One patient presented at birth with unilateral corneal perforation, suggestive of likely stromal thinning. A comparison of the breakpoints across all cases failed to reveal unique regions or genes in patients with CCO. CONCLUSIONS: 22q11.2 DS can rarely be associated with CCO. We describe a consistent pattern of central clearing related to posterior stromal thinning, with or without ICA/KLA. Possible candidate genes for corneal opacification in 22q11.2 DS remain elusive.