Journal of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus · 2001
Cross polarized spectacles in photosensitive epilepsy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Jain S, Woodruff G, Bissessar E A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate the role of cross polarized spectacles in the treatment of photosensitivity demonstrable by EEG.
METHOD: Patients receiving an EEG who tested positive for photosensitivity were invited to participate in the study. The most sensitive light flicker frequency causing a photic response was determined for each patient. Stimulation was repeated with 2 different pairs of spectacles--1 conventionally polarized and the other cross polarized. An EEG was obtained in each case and reported by a neurophysiologist who was unaware of the identity of the 2 types of spectacles.
RESULTS: We tested 19 patients, 8 to 18 years of age. Two patients did not benefit from either pair of glasses. In 17 patients, the photic response was greatly diminished or eliminated by polarizing spectacles. In 1 patient, conventional polarized glasses helped, but the cross polarized spectacles did not. In 6 patients, both types of spectacles were equally effective; in 10 patients, cross polarized spectacles were more effective than conventionally polarized spectacles.
CONCLUSION: The role of cross polarized spectacles in the management of photosensitivity in a clinical situation merits further investigation.
METHOD: Patients receiving an EEG who tested positive for photosensitivity were invited to participate in the study. The most sensitive light flicker frequency causing a photic response was determined for each patient. Stimulation was repeated with 2 different pairs of spectacles--1 conventionally polarized and the other cross polarized. An EEG was obtained in each case and reported by a neurophysiologist who was unaware of the identity of the 2 types of spectacles.
RESULTS: We tested 19 patients, 8 to 18 years of age. Two patients did not benefit from either pair of glasses. In 17 patients, the photic response was greatly diminished or eliminated by polarizing spectacles. In 1 patient, conventional polarized glasses helped, but the cross polarized spectacles did not. In 6 patients, both types of spectacles were equally effective; in 10 patients, cross polarized spectacles were more effective than conventionally polarized spectacles.
CONCLUSION: The role of cross polarized spectacles in the management of photosensitivity in a clinical situation merits further investigation.