Early onset of acquired comitant non-accommodative esotropia in childhood.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics and surgical outcome of acquired comitant non-accommodative esotropia without obvious cause in children with an early onset ≤ three years of age. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 24 consecutive patients (13 females) with acquired comitant non-accommodative esotropia underwent strabismus surgery. Outcome measures included amount of deviation and level of binocularity at last follow-up. RESULTS: An acute onset of strabismus was observed in 83 % of patients. Accompanying features such as diplopia, covering one eye or stumbling were observed in 40 % of the children. Cycloplegic retinoscopy revealed a mild to moderate hypermetropia in all children (mean hypermetropia + 2.2 diopters). 90.5 % of children were aligned within 8 PD of orthotropia. 81 % regained normal stereovision (Lang I/II). CONCLUSIONS: All children exhibited the typical features of acute acquired comitant esotropia (AACE) type II (Burian-Franceschetti). Collective characteristics of this form of strabismus are a comitant and relatively large deviation, mild hypermetropia, a potential of normal binocular cooperation and absence of an accommodative component and neurological pathology. Time and suddenness of strabismus onset may be less helpful in defining this entity.

[Chemical odor intolerance. 5 cases]. / Le syndrome d'intolérance aux odeurs chimiques. 5 observations.

BACKGROUND: Chemical odor intolerance is a benign, non-specific, generally subjective syndrome triggered by inhalation of non-toxic doses of chemical compounds or products which had been previously well tolerated. We report five characteristic cases and discuss current data. CASE REPORTS: Five patients (3 women, 2 men; age range 23-52 years) presented the basic criteria of chemical odor intolerance: acquired syndrome, non-specific signs (headache, nausea, vertigo ...) triggered by the odor of one or more chemical substances. Physical examination and exploratory tests were normal. In 3 cases, the course was favorable after evicting the causal substances. For the other 2 cases, intolerance spread to other compounds. Four of the patients changed their work situation because of the chemical odor intolerance. DISCUSSION: The diagnosis is clinical. Different pathogenic hypotheses have been put forward in the literature: immunological, toxic, neurobiological, psychological, and psychiatric mechanisms have been proposed. The mechanism is probably multifactorial but psychological factors appear to play an important role either as predisposing or triggering factors. CONCLUSION: Due to the social and occupational consequences of chemical odor intolerance, better knowledge of its prevalence and mechanism would be most helpful in managing these patients.