4.2 Article

Outcome of peripheral facial palsy in children - A catamnestic study

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PAEDIATRIC NEUROLOGY
卷 17, 期 2, 页码 185-191

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpn.2012.09.003

关键词

Idiopathic peripheral facial palsy; Children; Neuroborreliosis; Corticosteroids; Outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Even though the etiologies, therapies and prognoses of acute peripheral facial palsy (PFP) differ among children and adults, not many studies focus on children. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of 84 children, aged 10 months to 16 3/12 years, who were seen at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Switzerland between 1998 and 2007 due to PFP. Data about etiology, diagnostics and therapy were gathered from medical files, the outcome by questionnaires. Among 9 patients with residual symptoms, 6 returned for a follow-up visit and the results were documented with photographs. Recovery was graded by the House-Brackmann scale. Results: There were 83 unilateral and 1 bilateral case(s) of FP; neuroborreliosis (NB) causing 26 cases (31.0%), other infections 6 cases (7.1%) and toxicity of methotrexat 1 case (1.2%); 51 cases (60.7%) were classified as idiopathic (IPFP). Between the months June and November, the number of cases with NB rose to 53.3%, while there web no case between the months of January and April. Only 4 patients with IPFP received steroids. 75 patients (89.3%) recovered completely (HB-Grade I). 9 patients (10.7%) showed slight residual symptoms (HB-Grade II). Of these, 6 had IPFP, 1 had NB and 2 had otitis media (OM). Discussion: Almost a third of all palsies were caused by NB; during summer and fall, NB accounted for over half the cases. Patients with borreliosis showed a higher recovery rate than those with OM or IPFP. Almost 90% of the Patients investigated recovered completely, even without steroid treatment. Residual symptoms were slight. (C) 2012 European Paediatric Neurology Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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