Introduction: Sudden loss of vision (SLOV) is an ophthalmic emergency with diverse etiologies, including ischemic, nonischemic, and traumatic causes. Prompt diagnosis and intervention are essential to prevent permanent visual disability. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical spectrum, demographic distribution, and visual outcomes of patients presenting with SLOV in a tertiary care setting. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted at Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital between January 2015 and July 2016. Sixty-five patients presenting with SLOV lasting more than 24 h were included in the study. Detailed clinical history, ocular and systemic examination, imaging, and laboratory investigations were performed. Patients were followed for 6 months to assess visual outcomes. Data were analyzed using SPSS v20 with appropriate statistical tests. Results: Of the 65 patients, ischemic causes (30.8%) such as nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy and central retinal vein occlusion were most common, followed by nonischemic (35.4%) and traumatic (33.8%) causes. Males predominated, with trauma more common in younger males. Visual improvement was highest in ischemic cases (65%), followed by nonischemic (43.5%), traumatic (27.3%), and etiologies ( P = 0.048). Hypercholesterolemia was significantly associated with poor visual outcome in ischemic cases ( P = 0.028). Imaging, including fundus fluorescein angiography, optical coherence tomography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging, aided diagnosis and management. Conclusion: Ischemic etiologies were the most frequent and showed better visual outcomes with timely intervention. Hypercholesterolemia was a significant predictor of poor prognosis. Early diagnosis, systemic risk factor management, and prompt ophthalmologic care are crucial to improving outcomes in patients with sudden vision loss.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
D. Anandhi (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: