not uncommon findings in severe UV conjunctivitis. It is also possible that this patient was at increased risk for keratoconjunctivitis due to eye dryness from constantly looking through the camera viewfinder. It is unknown if the properties of the single-lens reflex camera (optical prism, lenses) contributed to the injury. To our knowledge, no studies have been conducted looking at singlelens reflex cameras and corneal or conjunctival injury from changes in light intensity through the viewfinder.
Differential diagnoses for prolonged orbital pain and photosensitivity include more severe diseases such as infection, corneal erosion, ulcer, or exposure keratopathy. The short duration of exposure prior to symptom onset and lack of intrinsic eye defects that predispose to exposure keratopathy make this diagnosis unlikely. Repeat examinations found improved inflammation (without antibiotics), making an infection doubtful. While no corneal clouding was observed by the treating physician, the absence of ophthalmologic follow-up to diagnose corneal erosion or availability of fluoroscein staining to note the classic pinpoint epithelial defects of UV keratitis makes a definitive diagnoses challenging.
This report reiterates the importance of proper ultraviolet eye protection in the outdoors, as well as unique injury contributing factors found in professional media support staff in expedition environments. This case also suggests the potential for further study on single-lens reflex cameras and their possible risk in exacerbating photokeratitis. A unilateral presentation should not eliminate UV keratoconjunctivits from the differential diagnosis of a unilateral acutely painful and red eye in an outdoor environment.