- •Foreword
- •Preface
- •Contributors
- •Contents
- •1. Epidemiology of Pediatric Strabismus
- •1.1 Introduction
- •1.2 Forms of Pediatric Strabismus
- •1.2.1 Esodeviations
- •1.2.1.1 Congenital Esotropia
- •1.2.1.2 Accommodative Esotropia
- •1.2.1.3 Acquired Nonaccommodative Esotropia
- •1.2.1.4 Abnormal Central Nervous System Esotropia
- •1.2.1.5 Sensory Esotropia
- •1.2.2 Exodeviations
- •1.2.2.1 Intermittent Exotropia
- •1.2.2.2 Congenital Exotropia
- •1.2.2.4 Abnormal Central Nervous System Exotropia
- •1.2.2.5 Sensory Exotropia
- •1.2.3 Hyperdeviations
- •1.3 Strabismus and Associated Conditions
- •1.4.1 Changes in Strabismus Prevalence
- •1.4.2 Changes in Strabismus Surgery Rates
- •1.5 Worldwide Incidence and Prevalence of Childhood Strabismus
- •1.6 Incidence of Adult Strabismus
- •References
- •2.1 Binocular Alignment System
- •2.1.2 Vergence Adaptation
- •2.1.3 Muscle Length Adaptation
- •2.2 Modeling the Binocular Alignment Control System
- •2.2.1 Breakdown of the Binocular Alignment Control System
- •2.2.4 Changes in Basic Muscle Length
- •2.2.6 Evidence Against the “Final Common Pathway”
- •2.3 Changes in Strabismus
- •2.3.1 Diagnostic Occlusion: And the Hazard of Prolonged Occlusion
- •2.3.2.1 Supporting Evidence for Bilateral Feedback Control of Muscle Lengths
- •2.4 Applications of Bilateral Feedback Control to Clinical Practice and to Future Research
- •References
- •3.1 Dissociated Eye Movements
- •3.2 Tonus and its relationship to infantile esotropia
- •3.5 Pathogenetic Role of Dissociated Eye Movements in Infantile Esotropia
- •References
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.2.1 Binocular Correspondence: Anomalous, Normal, or Both?
- •4.3 MFS with Manifest Strabismus
- •4.3.1 Esotropia is the Most Common Form of MFS
- •4.3.2 Esotropia Allows for Better Binocular Vision
- •4.3.3 Esotropia is the Most Stable Form
- •4.4 Repairing and Producing MFS
- •4.4.1 Animal Models for the Study of MFS
- •References
- •5.1 Esotropia as the Major Type of Developmental Strabismus
- •5.1.2 Early Cerebral Damage as the Major Risk Factor
- •5.1.3 Cytotoxic Insults to Cerebral Fibers
- •5.1.5 Development of Binocular Visuomotor Behavior in Normal Infants
- •5.1.6 Development of Sensorial Fusion and Stereopsis
- •5.1.7 Development of Fusional Vergence and an Innate Convergence Bias
- •5.1.8 Development of Motion Sensitivity and Conjugate Eye Tracking (Pursuit/OKN)
- •5.1.9 Development and Maldevelopment of Cortical Binocular Connections
- •5.1.10 Binocular Connections Join Monocular Compartments Within Area V1 (Striate Cortex)
- •5.1.11 Too Few Cortical Binocular Connections in Strabismic Primate
- •5.1.12 Projections from Striate Cortex (Area V1) to Extrastriate Cortex (Areas MT/MST)
- •5.1.15 Persistent Nasalward Visuomotor Biases in Strabismic Primate
- •5.1.16 Repair of Strabismic Human Infants: The Historical Controversy
- •5.1.18 Timely Restoraion of Correlated Binocular Input: The Key to Repair
- •References
- •6. Neuroanatomical Strabismus
- •6.1 General Etiologies of Strabismus
- •6.2 Extraocular Myopathy
- •6.2.1 Primary EOM Myopathy
- •6.2.2 Immune Myopathy
- •6.2.4 Neoplastic Myositis
- •6.2.5 Traumatic Myopathy
- •6.3 Congenital Pulley Heterotopy
- •6.4 Acquired Pulley Heterotopy
- •6.5 “Divergence Paralysis” Esotropia
- •6.5.1 Vertical Strabismus Due to Sagging Eye Syndrome
- •6.5.2 Postsurgical and Traumatic Pulley Heterotopy
- •6.5.3 Axial High Myopia
- •6.6 Congenital Peripheral Neuropathy: The Congenital Cranial Dysinnervation Disorders (CCDDs)
- •6.6.1 Congenital Oculomotor (CN3) Palsy
- •6.6.3 Congenital Trochlear (CN4) Palsy
- •6.6.4 Duane’s Retraction Syndrome (DRS)
- •6.6.5 Moebius Syndrome
- •6.7 Acquired Motor Neuropathy
- •6.7.1 Oculomotor Palsy
- •6.7.2 Trochlear Palsy
- •6.7.3 Abducens Palsy
- •6.7.4 Inferior Oblique (IO) Palsy
- •6.8 Central Abnormalities of Vergence and Gaze
- •6.8.1 Developmental Esotropia and Exotropia
- •6.8.2 Cerebellar Disease
- •6.8.3 Horizontal Gaze Palsy and Progressive Scoliosis
- •References
- •7.1 Congenital Cranial Dysinnervation Disorders: Facts About Ocular Motility Disorders
- •7.1.1 The Concept of CCDDs: Ocular Motility Disorders as Neurodevelopmental Defects
- •7.1.1.1 Brainstem and Cranial Nerve Development
- •7.1.1.2 Single Disorders Representing CCDDs
- •7.1.1.3 Disorders Understood as CCDDs
- •7.2 Congenital Cranial Dysinnervation Disorders: Perspectives to Understand Ocular Motility Disorders
- •7.2.1.1 Brown Syndrome
- •Motility Findings
- •Saccadic Eye Movements
- •Comorbidity
- •Epidemiologic Features
- •Laterality
- •Sex Distribution
- •Incidence
- •Heredity
- •Potential Induction of the Syndrome
- •Radiologic Findings
- •Natural Course in Brown Syndrome
- •Intra-and Postoperative Findings
- •References
- •8.1 Amblyopia
- •8.2 What Is Screening?
- •8.2.1 Screening for Amblyopia, Strabismus, and/or Refractive Errors
- •8.2.1.1 Screening for Amblyopia
- •8.2.1.2 Screening for Strabismus
- •8.2.1.3 Screening for Refractive Error
- •8.2.1.4 Screening for Other Ocular Conditions
- •8.3 Screening Tests for Amblyopia, Strabismus, and/or Refractive Error
- •8.3.1 Vision Tests
- •8.3.3 Stereoacuity
- •8.3.4 Photoscreening and/or Autorefraction
- •8.3.6 Who Should Administer the Screening Program?
- •8.4 Treatment of Amblyopia
- •8.4.1 Type of Treatment
- •8.4.2 Refractive Adaptation
- •8.4.3 Conventional Occlusion
- •8.4.4 Pharmacological Occlusion
- •8.4.5 Optical Penalization
- •8.4.7 Treatment Compliance
- •8.4.8 Other Treatment Options for Amblyopia
- •8.4.9 Recurrence of Amblyopia Following Therapy
- •8.5 Quality of Life
- •8.5.1 The Impact of Amblyopia Upon HRQoL
- •8.5.3 Reading Speed and Reading Ability in Children with Amblyopia
- •8.5.4 Impact of Amblyopia Upon Education
- •8.5.6 The Impact of Strabismus Upon HRQoL
- •8.5.7 Critique of HRQoL Issues in Amblyopia
- •8.5.8 The Impact of the Condition or the Impact of Treatment?
- •References
- •9. The Brückner Test Revisited
- •9.1 Amblyopia and Amblyogenic Disorders
- •9.1.1 Early Detection of Amblyopia
- •9.1.2 Brückner’s Original Description
- •9.2.1 Physiology
- •9.2.2 Performance
- •9.2.3 Shortcomings and Pitfalls
- •9.3.1 Physiology
- •9.3.2 Performance
- •9.3.3 Possibilities and Limitations
- •9.4.1 Physiology
- •9.4.2 Performance
- •9.4.3 Possibilities and Limitations
- •9.5 Eye Movements with Alternating Illumination of the Pupils
- •References
- •10. Amblyopia Treatment 2009
- •10.1 Amblyopia Treatment 2009
- •10.1.1 Introduction
- •10.1.2 Epidemiology
- •10.1.3 Clinical Features of Amblyopia
- •10.1.4 Diagnosis of Amblyopia
- •10.1.5 Natural History
- •10.2 Amblyopia Management
- •10.2.1 Refractive Correction
- •10.2.2 Occlusion by Patching
- •10.2.3 Pharmacological Treatment with Atropine
- •10.2.4 Pharmacological Therapy Combined with a Plano Lens
- •10.3 Other Treatment Issues
- •10.3.1 Bilateral Refractive Amblyopia
- •10.3.3 Maintenance Therapy
- •10.4 Other Treatments
- •10.4.1 Filters
- •10.4.2 Levodopa/Carbidopa Adjunctive Therapy
- •10.5 Controversy
- •10.5.1 Optic Neuropathy Rather than Amblyopia
- •References
- •11.1 Introduction
- •11.1.2 Sensory or Motor Etiology
- •11.1.4 History
- •11.1.5 Outcome Parameters
- •11.2 Outcome of Surgery in the ELISSS
- •11.2.1 Reasons for the ELISSS
- •11.2.2 Summarized Methods of the ELISSS
- •11.2.3 Summarized Results of the ELISSS
- •11.2.4 Binocular Vision at Age Six
- •11.2.5 Horizontal Angle of Strabismus at Age Six
- •11.2.6 Alignment is Associated with Binocular Vision
- •11.3 Number of Operations and Spontaneous Reduction into Microstrabismus Without Surgery
- •11.3.1 The Number of Operations Per Child and the Reoperation Rate in the ELISSS
- •11.3.2 Reported Reoperation Rates
- •11.3.3 Test-Retest Reliability Studies
- •11.3.6 Spontaneous Reduction of the Angle
- •11.3.7 Predictors of Spontaneous Reduction into Microstrabismus
- •Appendix
- •References
- •12.1 Overview
- •12.1.2 Manifest Latent Nystagmus (MLN)
- •12.1.2.1 Clinical Characteristics of Manifest Latent Nystagmus (MLN)
- •12.1.3 Congenital Periodic Alternating Nystagmus (PAN)
- •12.1.3.1 Clinical characteristics of congenital periodic alternating nystagmus
- •12.2 Compensatory Mechanisms
- •12.2.1 Dampening by Versions
- •12.2.2 Dampening by Vergence
- •12.2.3 Anomalous Head Posture (AHP)
- •12.2.3.4 Measurement of AHP
- •12.2.3.6 Testing AHP at Near
- •12.3 Treatment
- •12.3.1 Optical Treatment
- •12.3.1.1 Refractive Correction
- •12.3.1.2 Spectacles and Contact Lenses (CL)
- •12.3.1.3 Prisms
- •12.3.1.4 Low Visual Aids
- •12.3.2 Medication
- •12.3.3 Acupuncture
- •12.3.4 Biofeedback
- •12.3.6 Surgical Treatment of Congenital Nystagmus
- •12.3.6.1 Management of Horizontal AHP
- •12.3.6.2 Management of Vertical AHP
- •12.3.6.3 Management of Head Tilt
- •Retro-Equatorial Recession of Horizontal Rectus Muscles
- •The Tenotomy Procedure
- •References
- •13.1 Dissociated Deviations
- •13.2 Surgical Alternatives to Treat Patients with DVD
- •13.2.1 Symmetric DVD with Good Bilateral Visual Acuity, with No Oblique Muscles Dysfunction
- •13.2.2 Bilateral DVD with Deep Unilateral Amblyopia
- •13.2.3 DVD with Inferior Oblique Overaction (IOOA) and V Pattern
- •13.2.4 DVD with Superior Oblique Overaction (SOOA) and A Pattern
- •13.2.5 Symmetric vs. Asymmetric Surgeries for DVD
- •13.3 Dissociated Horizontal Deviation
- •13.4 Dissociated Torsional Deviation. Head tilts in patients with Dissociated Strabismus
- •13.5 Conclusions
- •References
- •14.1 Introduction
- •14.2 Clinical and Theoretical Investigations
- •References
- •15.1 General Principles of Surgical Treatment in Paralytic Strabismus
- •15.1.1 Aims of Treatment
- •15.1.2 Timing of Surgery
- •15.1.3 Preoperative Assessment
- •15.1.4 Methods of Surgical Treatment
- •15.2 Third Nerve Palsy
- •15.2.1 Complete Third Nerve Palsy
- •15.2.2 Incomplete Third Nerve Palsy
- •15.3 Fourth Nerve Palsy
- •15.4 Sixth Nerve Palsy
- •References
- •16.1 Graves Orbitopathy (GO): Pathogenesis and Clinical Signs
- •16.1.1 Graves Orbitopathy is Part of a Systemic Disease: Graves Disease (GD)
- •16.1.2 Graves Orbitopathy−Clinical Signs
- •16.1.2.1 Clinical Changes Result in Typical Symptoms
- •16.1.3 Clinical Examination of GO
- •16.1.3.1 Signs of Activity
- •16.1.3.2 Assessing Severity of GO
- •16.1.3.3 Imaging
- •16.2 Natural History
- •16.3 Treatment of GO
- •16.3.1.1 Glucocorticoid Treatment
- •16.3.1.2 Orbital Radiotherapy
- •16.3.1.3 Combined Therapy: Glucocorticoids and Orbital Radiotherapy
- •16.3.1.4 Other Immunosuppressive Treatments and New Developments
- •16.3.2 Inactive Disease Stages
- •16.3.2.1 Orbital Decompression
- •16.3.2.2 Extraocular Muscle Surgery
- •16.3.2.3 Lid Surgery
- •16.4 Thyroid Dysfunction and GO
- •16.5.1 Relationship Between Cigarette Smoking and Graves Orbitopathy
- •16.5.2 Genetic Susceptibility
- •16.6 Special Situations
- •16.6.1 Euthyroid GO
- •16.6.2 Childhood GO
- •16.6.3 GO and Diabetes
- •References
62 |
6 Neuroanatomical Strabismus |
may be associated with the clinical findings of limitation of active duction in the EOM’s field of action due to pulley hindrance (discussed below), as well as mechanical restriction to the opposite direction of passive rotation using for-
6ceps. In the usual clinical setting of generalized orbital and eyelid edema, these clinical findings can be indistinguishable from those of EOM entrapment in an orbital fracture. It is therefore desirable to promptly obtain an adequate imaging study, such as a CT or MRI scan, that can identify any possible tissue entrapped in an orbital fracture. Expeditious, if not emergent, release of entrapped EOMs or pulley tissue should be performed within several days before scarring makes repositioning impossible [11].
Summary for the Clinician
■Orbital pulley disorders can cause strabismus.
■Strabismus due to pulley disorders can clinically mimic restrictive or paralytic strabismus.
6.3Congenital Pulley Heterotopy
The direction of ocular rotation imparted by any EOM is defined by the relative locations of its scleral insertion and pulley; EOM path direction posterior to the pulley is not directionally important [12–14]. Every EOM can produce horizontal, vertical, and torsional actions, in relative proportions depending on pulley and insertion locations. Thus, alterations in positions of the horizontal rectus pulleys can impart substantial vertical and torsional actions to the medial and lateral rectus (LR) EOMs, while alterations in positions of the vertical rectus pulleys can impart substantial horizontal actions to the vertical rectus EOMs (Table 6.3).
The MR and LR pulleys are directly suspended by fibroelastic connective tissues from anteriorly located entheses, or anchors, on the orbital bones [15]. The medial enthesis is at the posterior lacrimal crest, while the lateral enthesis is at Whitnall’s tubercle. The inferior (IR) and superior rectus (SR) pulleys are somewhat indirectly supported by, in both cases, the medial and lateral enthe-
ses. Malpositioning of the entheses, or malpositioning of the orbital bones to which the entheses join, can therefore cause significant alterations in rectus EOM pulling directions. More significant still, the pulling directions of the four horizontal rectus EOMs can be purely horizontal only if their respective pulleys all lie on a horizontal line exactly transverse to the mid-sagittal plane of the skull. Any other orientation of the horizontal rectus pulleys in the two orbits will impart vertically imbalanced actions to the binocularly yoked agonist pairs: the MR in one orbit and the LR in the opposite orbit. This e ect is not related to the activity of the oblique EOMs, and probably cannot be counteracted by them.
Symmetric heterotopy of the rectus pulley arrays in the orbits produces two clinical findings: imbalanced versions in oblique gaze directions (formerly but incorrectly attributed to oblique EOM dysfunction) and vertically incomitant horizontal strabismus [16, 17]. MRI has demonstrated the coronal plane locations of rectus EOM pulleys to be stereotypic in normal [17, 18] and most strabismic subjects [18]. The 95% confidence intervals of coronal plane pulley coordinates are less than ±1 mm [18]. A computer model of binocular alignment incorporates passive elastic pulleys [19] and is now available as the application Orbit. The expected e ect of coronal plane heterotopy (malpositioning) of pulleys can be computed using Orbit [20]. Many cases of incomitant cyclovertical strabismus are associated with heterotopy of one or more rectus EOM pulleys exceeding two standard deviations from normal. Patterns of incomitance in individual patients consistently match those predicted by Orbit simulation based on measured pulley locations, suggesting that pulley heterotopy caused the strabismus [21, 22].
When the LR pulley is located superiorly to the MR pulley in both orbits (Fig. 6.3a), the MR exerts an infraducting action in adduction relative to that of the LR, causing excessive infraduction in extreme adduction, since only the abducting eye can fixate a target in this position. This heterotopic pulley configuration is typically associated with a nasal placement of the SR pulley relative to the IR pulley, such that the array of the four rectus pulleys has been incyclo rotated about the orbital
Table 6.3. Pattern strabismus associated with pulley heterotopy and eyelid configuration
Incomitance |
Horizontal |
|
Vertical pulleys |
|
Lateral canthal |
|
pulleys |
|
|
|
inclination |
|
LR |
MR |
IR |
SR |
|
A pattern |
Superior |
Inferior |
Temporal |
Nasal |
Superior |
V pattern |
Inferior |
Superior |
Nasal |
Temporal |
Inferior |
6.4 Acquired Pulley Heterotopy |
63 |
Fig. 6.3 Coronal T2 fast spin echo MRI showing typical pulley configurations of both orbits for (a) A and V (b) pattern strabismus
center. In supraversion, the SR exerts an adducting action, while in infraversion, the IR exerts an abducting action. Binocular alignment is consequently more divergent in infraversion than in supraversion, constituting an A pattern strabismus.
When the LR pulley is located inferiorly to the MR pulley in both orbits (Fig. 6.3b), the MR exerts a supraducting action in adduction relative to that of the LR, causing excessive supraduction in extreme adduction, since only the abducting eye can fixate a target in this position. This heterotopic pulley configuration is typically associated with a temporal placement of the SR pulley relative to the IR pulley, such that the array of the four rectus pulleys has been excyclo rotated about the orbital center [16]. In supraversion, the SR exerts an abducting action, while in infraversion, the IR exerts an adducting action. Binocular alignment is consequently more convergent in infraversion than in supraversion, constituting a V pattern strabismus.
Bony deformity of the orbits, such as that associated with craniosynostosis, is a common cause of congenital pulley heterotopy. Such a deformity and pulley heterotopy
need not be bilaterally symmetrical; when asymmetrical, the resulting strabismus may be horizontally as well as vertically incomitant, resembling dysfunction of a single oblique EOM.
Osseous deformity with pulley heterotopy may be suspected when external facial features are asymmetrical, or when there is a significant inclination to one or both the palpebral apertures [12, 23]. The medial and lateral canthal tendons normally insert on the orbital bones near the medial and lateral entheses of the pulley system, respectively. A superior (“mongoloid”) inclination of the lateral palpebral canthus is associated with A pattern incomitance, while an inferior inclination of the lateral palpebral canthus is associated with V pattern incomitance.
6.4Acquired Pulley Heterotopy
The inferior oblique’s (IO’s) orbital layer inserts partly on the conjoined IO–IR pulleys, partly on the IO sheath temporally and partly on the LR pulley’s inferior aspect
