Grades of Vitreous Clarity

  • Brian Madow
  • John H. Kempen
Living reference work entry


The vitreous humor is a transparent gel-like structure occupying the space between the retina, ciliary body, and the lens. The vitreous body forms very early during pregnancy and undergoes rapid transformation in three phases. The most important function of the vitreous from the sensory standpoint is to allow transmission of visible light to the retina. Vitreous clarity and light transmission capabilities also are functions of the index of refraction of the vitreous body, the specific structural composition and high level of organization of the collagen fibers. Vitreous haze from uveitis is produced by penetration of inflammatory cells and protein exudation into the vitreous from adjacent structures and is caused by inflammation itself. The clearing of the vitreous haze is dependent on factors external to the vitreous. The amount of the vitreous haze is judged currently by photographic scales. The older “NEI” scale has six ordinal grades of vitreous opacification ranging from (0) to (4 +). A newer logarithmic scale – “Miami” scale offers more levels of vitreous haze discrimination at the lower end of opacification; it has nine levels. Vitreous haze is accepted as surrogate marker for the disease activity in intermediate, posterior and panuveitis. Both scales are suitable for use for clinical grading, research trials, while the Miami scale is suitable also for reading center grading.


Hyaluronic Acid Optic Nerve Head Ciliary Body Clinical Grade Vitreous Body 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Suggested Reading

  1. Boettner EA, Wolter JR. Transmission of the ocular media. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1962;1:776–83.Google Scholar
  2. Davis J, Madow B, Cornett JI, et al. Scale for photographic grading vitreous haze. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;150(5):637–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Gao Q, Chen X, Ge J, Liu Y, Jiang Z, Lin Z, Liu Y. Refractive shifts in four selected artificial vitreous substitutes based on Gullstrand-Emsley and Liou-Brennan schematic eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50(7):3529–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Ghosn CR, Li Y, Orilla WC, Lin T, Wheeler L, Burke JA, Robinson MR, Whitcup SM. Treatment of experimental anterior and intermediate uveitis by a dexamethasone intravitreal implant. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(6):2917–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Hornbeak DM, Payal A, Pistilli M, Biswas J, Ganesh SK, Gupta V, Rathinam SR, Davis JL, Kempen JH. Interobserver agreement in clinical grading of vitreous haze using alternative grading scales. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(8):1643–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Hultsch E. Peripheral uveitis in the owl monkey: experimental model. Mod Probl Ophthalmol. 1977;18:247–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Jabs DA, Nussenblatt RB, Rosenbaum JT. Standardization of uveitis nomenclature for reporting clinical data: results of the First International Workshop. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;140(3):509–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Kempen JH, Ganesh SK, Sangwan VS, Rathinam SR. Interobserver agreement in grading activity and site of inflammation in eyes of patients with uveitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;146(6):813–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Kempen JH, Altaweel MM, Holbrook JT, Jabs DA, Sugar EA. Multicenter uveitis steroid treatment trial research group, the multicenter uveitis steroid treatment trial: rationale, design, and baseline characteristics. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;149(4):550–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kimura SJ, Thygeson P, Hogan MJ. Signs and symptoms of uveitis: II. Classification of the posterior manifestations of uveitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 1959;47(5, Pt 2):171–6.Google Scholar
  11. Lowder C, Belfort Jr R, Lightman S, Foster CS, Robinson MR, Schiffman RM, Li XY, Cui H, Whitcup SM. Dexamethasone intravitreal implant for noninfectious intermediate or posterior uveitis. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129(5):545–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Madow B, Galor A, Feuer WJ, Altaweel MM, Davis JL. Validation of a photographic vitreous haze grading technique for clinical trials in uveitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;152(2):170–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Nussenblatt RB, Palestine AG, Chan CC, Roberge F. Standardization of vitreal inflammatory activity in intermediate and posterior uveitis. Ophthalmology. 1985;92(4):467–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Odell NV, Leske DA, Hatt SR, Adams WE, Holmes JM. The effect of Bangerter filters on optotype acuity, vernier acuity, and contrast sensitivity. J AAPOS. 2008;12(6):555–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Ogston AG, Sherman TF. Effects of the hyaluronic acid upon diffusion of solutes and flow of solvents. J Physiol (Lond). 1961;156:67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pelegrín L, de la Maza MS, Molins B, Ríos J, Adán A. Long-term evaluation of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in vitrectomized and non-vitrectomized eyes with macular edema secondary to non-infectious uveitis. Eye (Lond). 2015;29(7):943–50.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Secchi Memoria del PA. Relazione delle esperienze fatte a bordo della pontificia pirocorvetta l’Immacolata concezione per determinare la trasparenza del mare. Il Nuovo Cimento. 1864;20(1):205–38Google Scholar
  18. Swann DA, Constable IJ. Vitreous structure II. Role of hyaluronate. Invest Ophthalmol. 1972;11(3):164–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Theodossiadis G, Chatzoulis D, Karantinos D, Maguritsas N. Intraocular complications following Custodis-Lincoff operation. Arch Ophtalmol Rev Gen Ophtalmol. 1975;35(8-9):627–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of South FloridaTampaUSA
  2. 2.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Discovery Eye InstituteAddis AbabaEthiopia
  4. 4.Department of OphthalmologyCenter for Preventive Ophthalmology and BiostatisticsPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations