Absence of the fourth cranial nerve in congenital Brown syndrome.
Details
Request a copy Under indefinite embargo.
UNIL restricted access
State: Public
Version: author
UNIL restricted access
State: Public
Version: author
Serval ID
serval:BIB_52E31BBED52A
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Absence of the fourth cranial nerve in congenital Brown syndrome.
Journal
Acta Ophthalmologica
ISSN
1755-3768 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
1755-375X
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2012
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
90
Number
4
Pages
e310-e313
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Case Reports ; Journal Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Publication Status: ppublish
Publication Status: ppublish
Abstract
PURPOSE: To elucidate the aetiology of congenital Brown syndrome.
METHODS: Four consecutive patients diagnosed with unilateral congenital Brown syndrome had a comprehensive standardized ocular motility examination. Any compensatory head posture was measured. Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with regard for the IV cranial nerve (CN) was performed in all patients. Orbital MRI was performed in 2/4 patients, with images acquired in eight directions of gaze and superior oblique (SO) muscle areas compared.
RESULTS: CN IV could not be identified bilaterally in two patients, but was absent only on the side of the Brown syndrome in the two other patients. On the normal side, orbital MRI revealed a smaller SO muscle area in upgaze than in downgaze, demonstrating normal actions of this muscle. On the side of the Brown syndrome, the SO area remained the same in upgaze and in downgaze and approximately symmetric to the area of SO in downgaze on the normal side.
CONCLUSIONS: These cases add further anatomical support to the theory of paradoxical innervation in congenital Brown syndrome. CN IV was absent in two patients on the side of the Brown syndrome, but without muscle hypoplasia. SO muscle size did not vary in up- and downgaze, which we interpreted as a sign of constant innervation through branches of CN III.
METHODS: Four consecutive patients diagnosed with unilateral congenital Brown syndrome had a comprehensive standardized ocular motility examination. Any compensatory head posture was measured. Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with regard for the IV cranial nerve (CN) was performed in all patients. Orbital MRI was performed in 2/4 patients, with images acquired in eight directions of gaze and superior oblique (SO) muscle areas compared.
RESULTS: CN IV could not be identified bilaterally in two patients, but was absent only on the side of the Brown syndrome in the two other patients. On the normal side, orbital MRI revealed a smaller SO muscle area in upgaze than in downgaze, demonstrating normal actions of this muscle. On the side of the Brown syndrome, the SO area remained the same in upgaze and in downgaze and approximately symmetric to the area of SO in downgaze on the normal side.
CONCLUSIONS: These cases add further anatomical support to the theory of paradoxical innervation in congenital Brown syndrome. CN IV was absent in two patients on the side of the Brown syndrome, but without muscle hypoplasia. SO muscle size did not vary in up- and downgaze, which we interpreted as a sign of constant innervation through branches of CN III.
Keywords
Adult, Eye Abnormalities/diagnosis, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Ocular Motility Disorders/congenital, Ocular Motility Disorders/diagnosis, Oculomotor Muscles/abnormalities, Oculomotor Muscles/innervation, Trochlear Nerve/abnormalities, Trochlear Nerve Diseases/diagnosis, Young Adult
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Yes
Create date
13/02/2012 15:01
Last modification date
20/08/2019 14:08