Objective: To observe and analyze the clinical features and misdiagnosis of iridocorneal endothelial (ICE) syndrome. Methods: In this retrospective case analysis, 86 eyes of 86 patients who were diagnosed with ICE syndrome between 1993 and 2015 in Qingdao Eye Hospital. Sex, age, maincomplaints, course of disease, types, complication and misdiagnosis were recorded and analyzed. Results: Eighty-six cases were unilateral. The ratio of male to female was 1:1.2, and the age ranged from 20 to 73 years, average 50.1±11.8 years. 91% of patients with progressive visual loss and red eye were the main complaints. The course of disease ranged from 0.17 to 10 years, average 2.4±2.3 years. 1% of patients complained about pupil deformation, the course of disease was 1 year. 6% of patients complained black eye foggy, the course of disease ranged from 0.5 to 2 years, average 1.4±0.6 years. 2% of patients with high intraocular pressure founding by physical examination were treated in time. 95% of patients with obvious iris atrophy were classified as primary progressive iris atrophy, Chandler and Cogan-Reese syndrome were 4% and 1%. The typical morphology of corneal endothelial cell showed irregular, cavitation, central black area and brighter edge. The atypical sign was no significant iris atrophy. 68% of patients had developed glaucoma and corneal endothelial dysfunction. Ultrasawnd biomicroscepy and angle mirror examination showed peripheral iris extensive anterior and local filamentous adhesion, angle pigment classification level was 1 to 3. 27% of patients were misdiagnosed for the first visit and 20% of these patients were misdiagnosed in other hospitals. 8% of patients were misdiagnosed as primary glaucoma, 12% of patients were misdiagnosed as Posner-Schlossman syndrome, Fuchs syndrome and uveitis. Absence of corneal endothelial cell morphology examination and atypical clinical manifestation were main causes of misdiagnosis. Conclusions: Progressive visual loss is the main reason for patients with ICE syndrome, long course of disease and delay treatment. More than 50% of patients have complications at visiting time. 95% of patients are primary progressive iris atrophy. Most easily misdiagnosed as primary glaucoma and uveitis. Absence of corneal endothelial cell morphology examination and atypical clinical manifestation are main causes of misdiagnosis.
王亚尼 单晓娜 代云海. 86例虹膜角膜内皮综合征临床特征 及误诊分析[J]. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2019, 21(10): 789-793.
Yani Wang, Xiaona Shan, Yunhai Dai. Analysis of the Clinical Features and Misdiagnosis of 86 Cases of Iridocorneal Endothelial Syndrome. Chinese Journal of Optometry Ophthalmology and Visual science, 2019, 21(10): 789-793. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-845X.2019.10.011
Mocan MC, Bozkurt B, Orhan M, et al. Chandler syndrome manifesting as ectropion uvea following laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2008, 34(5): 871-873.
Alvim PT, Cohen EJ, Rapuano CJ, et al. Penetrating keratoplasty in iridocorneal endothelial syndrome. Cornea, 2001, 20(2): 134- 140.
[7]
Zhang M, Chen J, Liang L, et al. Ultrasound biomicroscopy of Chinese eyes with iridocorneal endothelial syndrome. Br J Ophthalmol, 2006, 90(1): 64-69. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2005.
07
4864.
[8]
Saleem AA, Ali M, Akhtar F. Iridocorneal endothelial syndrome.J Coll Physicians Surg Pak, 2014, 24 Suppl 2: S112-114. DOI: 05.2014/JCPSP.S112S114.
Silva L, Najafi A, Suwan Y, et al. The iridocorneal endothelial syndrome. Surv Ophthalmol, 2018, 63(5): 665-676. DOI: 10. 1016/j.survophthal.2018.01.001.
[11]
Shields MB. Progressive essential iris atrophy, Chandler's syndrome, and the iris nevus (Cogan-Reese) syndrome: A spectrum of disease. Surv Ophthalmol, 1979, 24(1): 3-20. DOI: 10.1016/0039-6257(79)90143-7.
Chandran P, Rao HL, Mandal AK, et al. Outcomes of primary trabeculectomy with mitomycin-C in glaucoma secondary to iridocorneal endothelial syndrome. J Glaucoma, 2016, 25(7): e652-656. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000268.
[14]
Lee WR, Marshall GE, Kirkness CM. Corneal endothelial cell abnormalities in an early stage of the iridocorneal endothelial syndrome. Br J Ophthalmol, 1994,78(8): 624-631. DOI: 10. 1136/bjo.78.8.624.