4.5 Article

Propranolol in the management of periorbital infantile haemangioma

Journal

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 6, Pages 547-553

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2010.02344.x

Keywords

beta-blocker; capillary haemangioma; haemangioma; propranolol

Categories

Funding

  1. Royal Children's Hospital
  2. Kris Kamusinski at Herston Multimedia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

P>Background: Infantile haemangiomas are the commonest tumours of the orbit in children. Treatment is usually expectant, unless they are visually threatening. Although steroids, other pharmacological and surgical treatment modalities have their place, there are risks involved. A previous case series reported the successful use of propranolol for infantile haemangioma. The safety and efficacy of propranolol in the treatment of periorbital haemangioma was reviewed in a serious of our patients. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients seen by two ophthalmologists (TJS and GAG), collecting data on colour, size of lesion, duration of treatment and side-effects of treatment. Our main outcome measures were colour and size of infantile haemangioma before and after treatment, the change in astigmatism of our patients and the incidence of complications from propranolol. Results: We reviewed 10 patients with infantile haemangioma. They were treated with propranolol oral syrup 2 mg/kg/day in divided doses for a mean duration of 32.8 (range 12-42) weeks. All our patients had a reduction in colour and size of the lesions. The mean lesion size decreased from 756.7 to 543.2 mm2 after treatment (P = 0.075). Five patients had significant astigmatism and 60% had successful reduction of astigmatism after treatment. None of our patients suffered significant side-effects of propranolol. Conclusion: Propranolol appears to be a safe and effective treatment in the management of infantile haemangioma.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available