Analysis of Clinical Data from the Third, Fourth, or Sixth Cranial Nerve Palsy and Diplopia Patients Treated with in a Korean Medicine Clinic: A Retrospective Observational Study.

The clinical course of the third, fourth, and sixth cranial nerve palsies varies according to etiology and onset. The effects of in Korean patients with cranial nerve palsy and paralytic diplopia were assessed. This is a retrospective observational study. The study was conducted in a Korean Medicine clinic in Seoul, Korea. Subjects were 569 patients with cranial nerve palsy and diplopia who received in 2009-2018. The patients received herbal decoction, , for 4 weeks. The baseline characteristics, including onset, etiology, type of paralysis, and deviation angle, were collected. Patients whose diplopia resolved were classified as completely recovered. Potential factors affecting the clinical effectiveness of for this condition were explored. The rate and duration of complete recovery were narratively analyzed and compared with previous reports. Sixth cranial nerve palsy was the most common type of paralysis ( = 311, 55%) and undetermined origin was the most frequent etiology ( = 281, 49%). The complete recovery rate was higher in patients who started treatment within 12 weeks of onset (95%, 503/532) than in those who started treatment later (19%, 7/37). In 532 patients who started treatment within 12 weeks of onset, the complete recovery rate of patients with vascular origin (98%, 122/124), other diseases (97%, 94/97), and undetermined etiology (96%, 252/263) was statistically high compared with those of traumatic origin (73%, 35/48,  < 0.05). The average treatment duration in the complete recovery group ( = 510) was 9.3 weeks. The treatment duration was correlated with the increase of deviation angle in all three types of cranial nerve palsies. Sixth cranial nerve palsy and undetermined etiology were common. There is an association between recovery of diplopia and the administration of when started within 12 weeks of onset. Results of the study need to be interpreted cautiously due to the limited nature of narrative retrospective analysis.