Transnasal Endoscopic Optic Nerve Decompression in Post Traumatic Optic Neuropathy
- 17 Downloads
To quantify the successful outcome in patients following optic nerve decompression in post traumatic unilateral optic neuropathy in form of improvement in visual acuity. A prospective study was carried out over a period of 5 years (January 2011 to June 2016) at civil hospital Ahmedabad. Total 20 patients were selected with optic neuropathy including patients with direct and indirect trauma to unilateral optic nerve, not responding to conservative management, leading to optic neuropathy and subsequent impairment in vision and blindness. Decompression was done via Transnasal-Ethmo-sphenoidal route and outcome was assessed in form of post-operative visual acuity improvement at 1 month, 6 months and 1 year follow up. After surgical decompression complete recovery of visual acuity was achieved in 16 (80%) patients and partial recovery in 4 (20%). Endoscopic transnasal approach is beneficial in traumatic optic neuropathy not responding to steroid therapy and can prevent permanent disability if earlier intervention is done prior to irreversible damage to the nerve. Endoscopic optic nerve surgery can decompress the traumatic and oedematous optic nerve with proper exposure of orbital apex and optic canal without any major intracranial, intraorbital and transnasal complications.
KeywordsOptic nerve decompression Transnasal Post traumatic Optic neuropathy Impairment in vision
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declares that they have no conflicts of interest.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- 1.Gleeson M (2008) Scott Brown’s otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery, vol 1, 7th edn., chapter 132. Hodder Arnold, p 1684–1686Google Scholar