Aetiologies of acquired pediatric sixth nerve palsies in a U.K. based population.

Due to the low incidence of sixth cranial nerve palsies in children, there has been limited evidence published on this subject, especially from a population based within the UK. The incidence of etiologies has been found to vary significantly within the literature, especially with regard to neoplasms. The main aim of this study is to present the etiologies of newly diagnosed pediatric sixth nerve palsies in a UK-based population. We also take into consideration if the palsies were isolated or associated with other neurological signs or symptoms. Retrospective data collection was carried out on the medical records of 50 pediatric patients with a new-onset sixth nerve palsy. They all presented to a large tertiary referral hospital in the South of the UK between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2017. Data collected for each patient included age, gender, ethnicity, unilateral versus bilateral, other signs and symptoms, etiology, where the patient first presented, and whether the palsy was the first presenting feature. Thirty-three (66%) patients had a new-onset sixth nerve palsy in conjunction with other neurological signs or symptoms and were considered non-isolated. Seventeen cases (34%) were found to be isolated. Etiologies included high intracranial pressure (18%), neoplasm (14%), surgery for neoplasm (14%), viral (14%), infection (12%), trauma (8%), idiopathic (6%), benign space-occupying lesion (4%), congenital (2%), inflammation (2%), Alexander's disease (2%), Kawasaki syndrome (2%), and diabetes (2%). Our study found non-isolated sixth nerve palsies to be the most common presentation. These patients had a high number of potentially sinister etiologies, the most common being high intracranial pressure followed by post-surgery for neoplasm and neoplasm. Isolated sixth nerve palsies were more commonly due to viral or idiopathic etiology; however, two cases of benign space-occupying lesion and one of neoplasm were identified.

Atropine Penalization Versus Occlusion Therapies for Unilateral Amblyopia after the Critical Period of Visual Development: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Amblyopia therapy appears to be most effective in children under the age of 7 years, but results from randomized control trials (RCTs) have shown that occlusion therapy and/or atropine penalization therapy may improve visual acuity in an older age group. Which of these two therapies is the most effective with fewer adverse effects in an older age group has not yet been agreed upon. METHODS: We systematically searched the literature for RCTs that compared atropine penalization therapy and occlusion therapy in terms of their visual acuity outcomes and adverse events and performed a meta-analysis on the visual acuity data obtained. The adverse effects reported and their implications for clinical practice are discussed. RESULTS: Two RCTs were identified, with the authors of both concluding that there was no detectable difference between the two therapies for the age groups they studied. The mean difference between atropine penalization and occlusion therapies was calculated to be - 0.01 logMAR (95% confidence interval - 0.07 to 0.03 logMAR) in favor of occlusion therapy, and no statistical difference between the two groups was detected (P = 0.45). Neither study detected a marked difference in terms of reported adverse effects from the two interventions. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of our meta-analysis we conclude that there is no difference in visual acuity outcomes between atropine penalization therapy and occlusion therapy after 17 to 24 weeks of treatment in children aged 7-12 years. Further evidence to determine the efficacy of amblyopia therapy for an older patient population is required before studies comparing atropine penalization and occlusion therapy in patients older than 12 years can be performed. Atropine penalization therapy may cause more frequent minor adverse effects, such as light sensitivity, but in the clinical setting this needs to be balanced with the potential practical benefits of twice-weekly eye drops versus daily occlusion. FUNDING: The funding for this study was provided by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and Health Education England (HEE). A plain language summary is available for this article.