You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Image of the moment
Fundus fluorescein angiography in Susac’s syndrome
  1. Gavin L Reynolds1,
  2. Kevin Talbot2,
  3. Srilakshmi M Sharma1
  1. 1Oxford Eye Hospital, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
  2. 2Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Gavin L Reynolds, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford Eye hospital, Headley way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK; gavin.reynolds{at}doctors.org.uk

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/practneurol-2017-001727

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.

    The case

    A 41-year-old woman was diagnosed with Susac’s syndrome in 2012, having presented with confusion, headache, hearing loss and retinal arteriolar occlusions. Her MR scan of the brain showed several T2 hyperintensities in the corpus callosum and she was treated with cyclophosphamide.

    She was admitted 3 years later with a 4-week history of cognitive deterioration and visual loss, but with no new MR brain scan changes. Her Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) had fallen from a baseline of 22/30 to 16/30, while her Snellen central visual acuity had fallen from 6/6 bilaterally to 6/24 in the right eye and 6/36 in the left eye. Retinal photography and fundus fluorescein angiography showed bilateral, superotemporal branch retinal artery occlusions with macular ischaemia (figures 1 and 2).

    Figure 1

    Colour retinal image of the right eye (Optomap) showing pallor and nerve fibre layer swelling due to retinal ischaemia within the distribution of the superotemporal …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors GLR was responsible for data collection, obtaining patient consent and writing the manuscript. KT and SMS are key care providers for the patient described, and were responsible for ongoing review and critique of the manuscript.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Obtained.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed. This paper was reviewed by Christian Lueck, Canberra, Australia.

    Linked Articles

    • Editors’ commentary
      Highlights from this issue
      Phil E M Smith Geraint N Fuller
      Practical Neurology 2017; 17 423-423 Published Online First: 15 Nov 2017. doi: 10.1136/practneurol-2017-001816

    Other content recommended for you