RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Ophthalmology is frequently consulted to "rule-out papilledema." We assessed the efficacy of a portable, non-mydriatic fundus camera in detecting optic disc edema in the inpatient and emergency room settings during "rule-out papilledema" consultations, comparing to the gold standard dilated fundus examination (DFE). METHODS: This prospective, blinded, cohort study included 124 non-mydriatic fundus photographs (62 patients) that were obtained over the 11-month enrollment period. The images, along with a brief clinical history, were evaluated independently by an attending neuro-ophthalmologist (NO), general ophthalmologist (GO), emergency room (ER) physician, and ophthalmology resident (OR), for the presence of disc edema and indication for consultation. Results were compared to DFE. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were determined to evaluate the efficacy of the camera. RESULTS: On DFE, disc edema was present in 51 eyes (41.1%). Compared to DFE, NO assessment had the greatest combined sensitivity (84.3%) and specificity (97.3%) for the detection of disc edema, followed by that of GO (sensitivity 77.4%, specificity 100%), OR (sensitivity 96.1%, specificity 80.8%), and ER clinician (sensitivity 68.6%, specificity 89.0%). Areas under ROC curves for NO, GO, OR, and ER physician were all statistically significant for the detection of disc edema (0.908, P < 0.001; 0.892, P < 0.001; 0.885, P < 0.001; 0.788, P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Clinicians were able to correctly identify optic disc edema using non-mydriatic fundus photography. Non-mydriatic fundus photography may be an effective inpatient or telemedicine tool to assess for optic disc edema.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To identify ophthalmic manifestations of Mycoplasma-induced rash and mucositis (MIRM). METHODS: The medical records of patients with MIRM treated by the inpatient ophthalmology consult service at a single institution over a period of 4 years were reviewed retrospectively. Eye and skin findings, treatment, hospital course, and follow-up findings were documented and reviewed. RESULTS: MIRM was identified in 10 patients, 10-20 years of age (mean, 13.) All presented with oral mucosal findings and a prodrome. On initial examination, conjunctival epithelial defects were present in 2 patients; pseudomembranes, in 3. Five patients experienced progressive ophthalmic manifestations during hospitalization, including a new cornea epithelial defect in 1 patient and a new conjunctival epithelial defect in 3 patients. All were treated with topical steroids and antibiotics. Post-discharge follow-up obtained for 7 patients documented good visual outcomes and lack of significant ocular sequelae without requiring invasive intervention. CONCLUSIONS: MIRM, previously referred to as mycoplasma-associated Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) among other names, is now understood to be distinct from SJS in the dermatology community. Our MIRM patients present with mild eye findings and required no surgery, similar to the mild course published in the dermatology literature. Patients with MIRM may have a more benign course than those with SJS.