4.6 Article

Simplifying the diagnosis of optic tract lesions

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.1029829

关键词

optic tract lesions; optical coherence tomography; visual field; magnetic resonance imaging; visual pathway

资金

  1. Zanvyl and Isabelle Krieger Fund, Baltimore, MD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Optic tract lesions (OTL) are often challenging to diagnose, but presenting clinical and imaging data systematically in a predefined order can simplify the diagnostic process. Despite the presence of pediatric patients and involvement of other structures, the predefined sequence can aid in easy diagnosis.
Optic tract lesions (OTL) are often difficult to diagnose. We suggest an algorithm to simplify the often-challenging diagnosis of OTL. Clinical and imaging data were retrospectively collected from the electronic files of 6 patients diagnosed with OTL at a tertiary medical center in 2016-2020. The series included 4 children and 2 adults with an OTL caused by a glioma (n = 5) or motor vehicle accident (n = 1). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a suprasellar glioma involving the chiasm and tract alone (n = 1) and the ipsilateral optic nerve (n = 2) and only optic tract (3). Perimetry showed incongruent homonymous hemianopia in 3 patients. In two patients, perimetry could only be performed in one eye, and demonstrated hemianopia. In one patient perimetry was unreliable. Fundus examination revealed bow-tie atrophy in all patients. On optical coherence tomography (OCT) of the peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) horizontal thinning was observed in the contralateral eye (n = 6). By presenting the information in a predefined order-visual field damage, OCT RNFL thickness, and MRI-the diagnosis could be easily reached even in children, and when other structures like the chiasm were involved. Fundus photographs easily detect bow tie atrophy in children. Systematic presentation of the data in a predefined order can ease the diagnostic process of OTLs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据