Silent Anterior-Segment Remodeling in Fuchs Uveitis Syndrome: Structural and Pupillometric Findings
Ocular Immunology and Inflammation, cilt.34, sa.2, ss.378-384, 2026 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
- Cilt numarası: 34 Sayı: 2
- Basım Tarihi: 2026
- Doi Numarası: 10.1080/09273948.2025.2612128
- Dergi Adı: Ocular Immunology and Inflammation
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Academic Search Ultimate (EBSCO), Biomedical Reference Collection: Corporate Edition (EBSCO)
- Sayfa Sayıları: ss.378-384
- Anahtar Kelimeler: Fuchs uveitis syndrome, keratometry, pupillometry, topography
- Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
Purpose: To quantify anterior-segment remodelling and pupillary behaviour in unilateral Fuchs uveitis syndrome (FUS) and to evaluate the diagnostic utility of anterior-segment metrics. Methods: Single-centre, retrospective, paired-eye study of 42 patients with unilateral FUS was conducted. Each patient’s FUS eye was compared with the contralateral clinically healthy eye. Anterior-segment parameters (K1, K2, Kmax, central corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth (ACD), anterior chamber volume, iridocorneal angle (ICA)) were obtained with a Scheimpflug system. Static pupillometry recorded pupil diameter under scotopic (0.04 lx), mesopic (4 lx), and photopic (40 lx) conditions. The discriminative performance of parameters was assessed by receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results: FUS eyes showed a wider ICA and deeper ACD (p < 0.001, for each). K2 and Kmax were steeper in FUS (both p < 0.001). On pupillometry, the photopic pupil was larger in FUS (p = 0.001), whereas scotopic and mesopic diameters were comparable (p = 0.78 and 0.64, respectively). The mesopic to photopic constriction amplitude was reduced in FUS (p = 0.002); the scotopic to photopic amplitude was borderline (p = 0.061), and scotopic to mesopic was not different (p = 0.739) between eyes. In ROC analysis, ACD discriminated FUS from fellow eyes with an AUC of 0.747 (95% CI, 0.638–0.846); the cutoff was 3.05 mm, with a sensitivity of 0.67 and a specificity of 0.79. Conclusions: Unilateral FUS exhibits a coherent structural–functional signature: wider angles and deeper ACD, axis-selective anterior steepening, and attenuated photopic constriction with a larger photopic pupil. Combining Scheimpflug anterior-segment metrics with standardized pupillometry provides practical, adjunctive markers that may strengthen diagnostic confidence and sharpen hypotheses on FUS pathophysiology.