![SonomaEye-full-color-vector[2].png](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/bed00b_da20b9cc704044b0b048ac8ef9190470~mv2_d_3024_2195_s_2.png/v1/fill/w_177,h_123,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/SonomaEye-full-color-vector%5B2%5D.png)
Thank you for your submission!
OCTA imaging of Hyalocytes in Patients with Uveitis
James Samson
Presenter:
Samson, James M. (1,2) ; Greenberg, Lily A. (1); Muncharaz Duran,Luis (1); Chui, Toco Y. (1); Rosen, Richard B. (1,3); Parikh, Deep U. (1).
Authors:
Affiliation:
1. Ophthalmology, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.
2. College of Medicine, SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University College of Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
3. Ophthalmology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.
Purpose: Hyalocytes are resident macrophages found in the vitreous body. Hyalocytes play a key role in immune surveillance and therefore changes in their density or morphology can serve as possible indicators ofinflammatory activity in uveitis. In this study, we compared the characteristics of hyalocytes in patients withuveitis affecting the posterior segment versus controls.
Methods: Three patients with uveitis (birdshot chorioretinopathy), one patient with syphilitic panuveitis, and four age-matched controls were imaged using a clinical SD-OCT device (Avanti RTVue-XR; Optovue). Ten3x3mm scans located in the parafoveal region were acquired and averaged (PMID: 32574351). Hyalocyte count and morphology identification was performed manually on an averaged 3μm OCT enface hyalocyte slablocated above the inner limiting membrane (Figure B, E). Number of hyalocytes inside the fovea avascularzone (FAZ), as well as total number in the 3x3 scan were obtained. Morphology was assessed by counting the number of amoeboid (activated hyalocytes) present. These hyalocyte metrics were compared across groups of patients with uveitis and controls using IBM SPSS (V24).
Results: The median±interquartile range for total number of hyalocytes was 18.33±24.08, 8.5±9.0 for uveitis and controls respectively. FAZ hyalocyte count was 3.5±3.25, 0.00±3.00, for uveitis and controls respectively. Amoeboid hyalocyte count was 2.00±1.50, 1.50±2.50, for uveitis and controls respectively. Total number of hyalocytes in uveitis was significantly higher compared to controls, Mann-Whitney p = 0.043. FAZ hyalocytecount and amoeboid hyalocyte counts showed no significant difference (Mann-Whitney p = 0.268, p=1.00 respectively).
Conclusions: Total number of hyalocytes in the posterior segment was significantly higher in uveitis compared to controls. FAZ hyalocyte count and ameboid hyalocyte count were not significantly different between the twogroups. Interpretation was limited by small sample size. Further studies are warranted to describe hyalocyte count and its association, if any, with disease severity or treatment for patients with uveitis.
Attachments:
