4.6 Article

Ophthalmologic findings and long-term course in patients with neurofibromatosis type 2

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 141, 期 6, 页码 1068-1077

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2005.12.042

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To evaluate ophthalmologic findings and long-term course in patients with neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2). DESIGN: Retrospective observational case series. METHODS: SETTING: Single-center institutional practice. STUDY POPULATION: Thirty referred patients with NF2 were enrolled from 1991 to 2003 and underwent at least one thorough neuroophthalmologic examination. Follow-up of 23 patients ranged from 4.3 to 12.5 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual function, structural ocular abnormalities, onset and type of presenting NF2. related symptoms, and number of central nervous system tumors. RESULTS: Initial symptoms for patients with early. onset NF2 mostly comprised ophthalmologic symptoms (n = 7) and lower motor neuron extremity weakness (n 6), as opposed to eighth nerve impairment (n = 11) in late disease onset. NF2-specific ocular findings were noted in 83% of all patients (94% childhood onset; 67% adult onset): 67% had cataracts, 40% epiretinal membranes, 3% hamartoma, 13% disk gliomas, and 27% optic nerve sheath meningiomas. Only 14% in the childhood-onset group-as opposed to 78% in the adults onset group-sustained visual acuity of 1.0 in both eyes at final examination. Significantly more patients with early onset of symptoms developed multiple central nervous system tumors (P =.004) and showed a higher amount of NF2-specific findings (P =.015). CONCLUSIONS: Initial manifestations of NF2 differ between children and adults. NF2-specific ophthalmo, logic findings can help establish the diagnosis. Symptom onset at a young age is clearly a risk factor for marked disease progression. These patients should be carefully followed because survival rates have increased, and vision becomes increasingly important as the disease progresses.

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