4.6 Article

Traumatic homonymous hemianopia

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY NEUROSURGERY AND PSYCHIATRY
Volume 77, Issue 8, Pages 986-988

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.2006.088799

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NEI NIH HHS [P30-EY06360] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To describe the characteristics of patients with homonymous hemianopia from traumatic brain injury (TBI) seen in our unit between 1989 and 2004. Methods: Only patients with a history of TBI, who had detailed clinical information and results of neuroimaging, were included in our study. Demographic characteristics, clinical features, types of visual field defects, location of lesion and evolution of visual field defects were recorded. Results: Of the 880 patients with homonymous hemianopia seen in our unit, 103 patients (112 with homonymous hemianopia) had TBI (74 men and 29 women, mean age 30.7 (SD 15.3) years). Median time from injury to initial visual field testing was 5 (range 0.5-360) months. In all, 64 (57.1%) patients sustained injuries that were motor vehicle-related; 19 (17%) violence-related; 17 (15.2%) due to falls; and 12 (10.7%) because of other blunt head trauma. Visual field defects included complete homonymous hemianopia in 44 (39.3%) patients and incomplete homonymous hemianopia in 68 (60.7%) patients. The lesion was occipital in 14 (12.5%) patients, associated with optic radiation in 26 (23.2%) and the optic tract in 12 (10.7%), and multiple in 60 (53.6%). Conclusion: Most cases of homonymous hemianopia from TBI were motor vehicle-related. Patients were younger, more often male, and had multiple brain lesions more often than patients with homonymous hemianopia from causes other than TBI. A median delay of 5 months was observed before the documentation of the homonymous hemianopia, which may have a major effect on the success of rehabilitation and driving training in these young patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available