It is believed that they are the same syndrome. References
This article incorporates text from the United States National Library of Medicine ([1]), which is in the public domain. == External links ==
An important differential diagnosis is Vogt–Koyanagi–Harada syndrome (VKH), which is thought to have the same pathogenesis, without a history of surgery or penetrating eye injury. Still experimental, skin tests with soluble extracts of human or bovine uveal tissue are said to elicit delayed hypersensitivity responses in these patients. Additionally, circulating antibodies to uveal antigens have been found in patients with SO and VKH, as well as those with long-standing uveitis, making this a less than specific assay for SO and VKH. Treatment
Because SO is so rarely encountered following eye injury, even when the injured eye is retained, the first choice of treatment may not be enucleation or evisceration, especially if there is a chance that the injured eye may regain some function. Additionally, with current advanced surgical techniques, many eyes once considered nonviable now have a fair prognosis. However, only if the injured eye has completely lost its vision and has no potential for any visual recovery, prevention of SO is done by enucleation of the injured eye preferably within the first 2 weeks of injury. Evisceration—the removal of the contents of the globe while leaving the sclera and extraocular muscles intact—is easier to perform, offers long-term orbital stability, and is more aesthetically pleasing, i.e., a greater measure of movement of the prosthesis and thus a more natural appearance. There is concern, however, that evisceration may lead to a higher incidence of SO compared to enucleation. Several retrospective studies involving over 3,000 eviscerations, however, have failed to identify a single case of SO.