Dhaliwal Avninder, West Adrienne L, Trobe Jonathan D, Musch David C
Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105, USA.
J Neuroophthalmol. 2006 Mar;26(1):4-10. doi: 10.1097/01.wno.0000204661.48806.1d.
The relationship between the circumstances and severity of closed head injury (CHI) and the clinical and imaging features of cranial nerve 3, 4, and 6 palsies has not been rigorously addressed in a large study.
Retrospective chart review of 210 consecutive patients with CHI examined at a single tertiary care center from 1987 to 2002. Patients were located by searching the ophthalmology inpatient consultation and neuro-ophthalmology outpatient databases and hospital emergency room billing codes for a diagnosis of traumatic 3, 4, or 6 cranial nerve palsy (Cranial Nerve Injury Group) and a diagnosis of CHI without traumatic 3, 4, or 6 nerve palsy (Control Group). The Cranial Nerve Injury Group was then subdivided into two groups: those with injuries to an individual cranial nerve and those with multiple (including bilateral) cranial nerve injuries. Comparisons between groups were based on age, gender, type of accident, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), documented loss of consciousness (LOC), type of ocular injury, presence of systemic injury, need for rehabilitation, physical therapy and cognitive scores, and imaging features.
The Cranial Nerve Injury Group had a significantly higher severity of head injury, more CT abnormalities, and worse short-term neurologic outcomes as compared with the Control Group. These trends were also found when each cranial nerve injury subgroup was compared with the Control Group. Those with cranial nerve 3 palsy had the most severe head injury; those with cranial nerve 4 palsy had an intermediate level of head injury; and those with cranial nerve 6 palsy had the lowest level of head injury. There were no consistent associations between the location of the imaging abnormalities and which cranial nerve was damaged.
CHI with palsy of an ocular motor nerve was more severe than CHI without ocular motor nerve palsy, as measured by the GCS, intracranial and skull imaging abnormalities, and a greater frequency of inpatient rehabilitation. Palsy of cranial nerve 3 was associated with relatively more severe CHI than was palsy of cranial nerves 4 or 6. The location of the imaging abnormalities did not correlate with a particular cranial nerve injury.
在一项大型研究中,闭合性颅脑损伤(CHI)的情况和严重程度与动眼神经、滑车神经和展神经麻痹的临床及影像学特征之间的关系尚未得到严格探讨。
对1987年至2002年在一家三级医疗中心接受检查的210例连续性CHI患者进行回顾性病历审查。通过搜索眼科住院会诊和神经眼科门诊数据库以及医院急诊室计费代码来确定患者,以诊断创伤性动眼神经、滑车神经或展神经麻痹(脑神经损伤组)以及无创伤性动眼神经、滑车神经或展神经麻痹的CHI诊断(对照组)。然后将脑神经损伤组细分为两组:单个脑神经损伤患者和多个(包括双侧)脑神经损伤患者。组间比较基于年龄、性别、事故类型、格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)、记录的意识丧失(LOC)、眼外伤类型、全身损伤的存在、康复需求、物理治疗和认知评分以及影像学特征。
与对照组相比,脑神经损伤组的颅脑损伤严重程度明显更高,CT异常更多,短期神经学预后更差。当将每个脑神经损伤亚组与对照组进行比较时,也发现了这些趋势。动眼神经麻痹患者的颅脑损伤最严重;滑车神经麻痹患者的颅脑损伤程度中等;展神经麻痹患者的颅脑损伤程度最低。影像学异常的位置与受损的脑神经之间没有一致的关联。
根据GCS、颅内和颅骨影像学异常以及更高的住院康复频率来衡量,伴有眼运动神经麻痹的CHI比不伴有眼运动神经麻痹的CHI更严重。动眼神经麻痹比滑车神经或展神经麻痹与相对更严重的CHI相关。影像学异常的位置与特定的脑神经损伤无关。