Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Adolescent with unilateral vision loss
  1. Michele Mazzolai1,
  2. Aldo Skabar2,
  3. Fulvio Parentin2,
  4. Egidio Barbi1,2
  1. 1 Department of Medicine, Surgery and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy
  2. 2 Institute for Maternal and Child Health, IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy
  1. Correspondence to Dr Michele Mazzolai, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste 34137, Italy; michele.mazzolai90{at}gmail.com

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

A previously healthy 15-year-old girl was referred with a history of visual loss in the right eye for 1 month in the absence of other symptoms or traumatic events.

The symptoms started with the patient reporting to see a vertical dark line in front of her right eye. She had been initially evaluated in another hospital, with an automated static perimetry showing a peripheral shrinkage of the visual field with a starfish pattern (figure 1A) and a brain MRI revealing no pathological findings. The symptoms apparently resolved afterwards, but after 2 weeks re-presented as a blurred vision in the right eye.

Figure 1

(A) Automated static perimetry of the right eye showing peripheral shrinkage of the visual field with a starfish pattern (46% of false-negatives answers). (B) Automated static perimetry of the right eye showing tubular shrinkage leaving an unimpaired residue of the paracentral inferior 10° (50% of false-negatives answers).

On admission, physical examination was unremarkable, and blood pressure and heart rate were in range for her age. Ophthalmological evaluation showed visual acuity of 20/20 in both eyes, normal fundus oculi …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors MM drafted the initial manuscript and approved the final manuscript as submitted. AS and FP contributed to achieving the clinical diagnosis of the case. AS, FP and EB critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final manuscript as submitted. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.