4.7 Article

Visual recovery following acute optic neuritis - A clinical, electrophysiological and magnetic resonance imaging study

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 251, 期 8, 页码 996-1005

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-004-0477-1

关键词

optic neuritis; multiple sclerosis; magnetic resonance imaging; gadolinium; visual evoked potentials

资金

  1. Multiple Sclerosis Society [748] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reports the prospective follow-up of a cohort of patients with acute optic neuritis examined with serial visual tests, visual evoked potentials (VEPs), conventional and triple-dose gadolinium (Gd)-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to examine which factors are important in visual recovery. Thirty-three patients were recruited with acute unilateral optic neuritis. A clinical and VEP assessment was performed on each. Optic nerve MRI was performed using fast spin echo (FSE) (on all) and triple-dose Gd-enhanced T(1)-weighted sequences (n=28). Optic nerve lesion lengths were measured. Serial assessments were performed on 22 of the patients up to one-year. Serial Gd-enhanced optic nerve imaging was performed on 15 of the patients until enhancement ceased. The final 30-2 Humphrey visual field mean deviation (MD) was 2.55 dB higher in patients in the lowest quartile of initial Gd-enhanced lesion length compared with the other quartiles (p<0.01) but recovery was not related to the duration of enhancement. The initial recovery of Humphrey MD was 4.60 dB units per day in patients with good eventual recoveries (MD>-6.0 dB) and 0.99 dB per day in poor-recovery patients (p=0.02). Good-recovery patients had mean central field VEP amplitudes 2.29 muV higher during recovery than poor-recovery patients (p=0.047). The results suggest that factors which are associated with a better prognosis are: having a short acute lesion on triple-dose gadolinium enhanced imaging, higher VEP amplitudes during recovery and a steep gradient of the initial improvement in vision.

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

4.7
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