Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2011
Visual field loss in children with craniosynostosis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Liasis Alki, Walters Bronwen, Thompson Dorothy, Smith Kate, Hayward Richard, Nischal Ken K
Аннотация
AIMS: To identify visual field deficits in a group of children with syndromic craniosynostosis.
METHODS: Kinetic visual field examination and visual evoked potentials (VEPs) were recorded in 16 children with syndromic craniosynostosis as part of their ophthalmic evaluation. VEPs were analyzed for inter-hemispheric asymmetries and component amplitude and latency, while visual fields were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively.
RESULTS: All children with craniosynostosis were found to have visual field deficits compared to controls. In the Crouzon group, deficits tended to involve the nasal field, while infero-nasal field deficits were the most consistent finding in children with Apert syndrome. Children with Pfeiffer's demonstrated the greatest deficits, with severe constrictions affecting the whole visual field. VEPs were asymmetrical in four cases while the P100 component was subnormal in ten of the 16 patients for either amplitude and/or latency.
CONCLUSION: Although we may speculate about the mechanisms that cause visual field deficits, we currently are unable to explain the reason for the differing types and extent of visual field loss in the different syndromic groups. We can conclude that the visual field deficits do indicate previous or ongoing visual dysfunction that cannot be monitored employing central vision tests alone.
METHODS: Kinetic visual field examination and visual evoked potentials (VEPs) were recorded in 16 children with syndromic craniosynostosis as part of their ophthalmic evaluation. VEPs were analyzed for inter-hemispheric asymmetries and component amplitude and latency, while visual fields were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively.
RESULTS: All children with craniosynostosis were found to have visual field deficits compared to controls. In the Crouzon group, deficits tended to involve the nasal field, while infero-nasal field deficits were the most consistent finding in children with Apert syndrome. Children with Pfeiffer's demonstrated the greatest deficits, with severe constrictions affecting the whole visual field. VEPs were asymmetrical in four cases while the P100 component was subnormal in ten of the 16 patients for either amplitude and/or latency.
CONCLUSION: Although we may speculate about the mechanisms that cause visual field deficits, we currently are unable to explain the reason for the differing types and extent of visual field loss in the different syndromic groups. We can conclude that the visual field deficits do indicate previous or ongoing visual dysfunction that cannot be monitored employing central vision tests alone.