Bobby R. Alford Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Weill-Cornell College of Medicine, The Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas3Department of Head and Neck Surgery, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas4Department of Ophthalmology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas5Department of Plastic Surgery.
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014 May;132(5):567-71. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.82.
Current controversy about the primary treatment of traumatic optic neuropathy (TON) has anchored on final vision following injury, but, to our knowledge, no study has examined the effect of different treatments on regaining and protecting optic nerve reserve or on the outcome of second optic nerve injuries.
To assess vision improvement in patients treated by various methods who have a second incidence of TON.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective medical record review of 12 patients with a second TON seen in an 18-year period (mean follow-up, 11.3 months) at a single tertiary care oculoplastic practice.
Observation, high-dose corticosteroids, optic nerve decompression, or high-dose corticosteroids plus optic nerve decompression.
Change in vision on the Snellen eye chart. RESULTS All second TON events involved the same-side optic nerve as initially injured, and with observation alone, corticosteroids, or corticosteroids and partial optic canal decompression, all patients had vision improvement after their initial injury (P = .004). However, following the second optic nerve injury, most patients' vision fell to the pretreatment level of the first injury, and subsequent management of the second injury with corticosteroids and/or optic canal decompression provided little or no vision return (P = .05). In contrast, optic canal decompressions performed for 91 primary TON injuries resulted in 82.4% having some degree of vision improvement.
Patients with TON may have a second optic nerve insult, and vision recovery from the second event may be limited regardless of primary treatment choice.
目前关于创伤性视神经病变(TON)的主要治疗方法的争议主要集中在受伤后的最终视力上,但据我们所知,尚无研究探讨不同治疗方法对恢复和保护视神经储备或对第二视神经损伤结果的影响。
评估接受各种治疗方法的患者在发生第二次 TON 时的视力改善情况。
设计、设置和参与者:对一家三级护理眼整形机构在 18 年期间(平均随访时间为 11.3 个月)诊治的 12 例第二次 TON 患者的回顾性病历进行回顾。
观察、大剂量皮质类固醇、视神经减压或大剂量皮质类固醇加视神经减压。
Snellen 视力表上的视力变化。
所有第二次 TON 事件均涉及与初次受伤相同侧的视神经,单独观察、皮质类固醇或皮质类固醇加部分视神经管减压均可使所有患者在初次受伤后视力改善(P = .004)。然而,在第二次视神经损伤后,大多数患者的视力下降到第一次损伤的治疗前水平,随后用皮质类固醇和/或视神经管减压治疗第二次损伤几乎没有或没有恢复视力(P = .05)。相比之下,对 91 例原发性 TON 损伤进行视神经管减压,82.4%的患者有一定程度的视力改善。
TON 患者可能会受到第二次视神经损伤的影响,无论主要治疗选择如何,第二次事件的视力恢复可能有限。