Purchase this article with an account.
I. Hamazaki, S. Hasebe, H. Ohtsuki; Comparison of Static Ocular Counterroll Between Congenital and Acquired Superior Oblique Palsy . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):2934.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Purpose: Static ocular counterroll (s–OCR), or cyclo–torsional eye deviation occurs when making the head tilted, has not been well studied in patients with superior oblique muscle (SO) palsy. We measure s–OCR in normal subjects and patients with SO palsy, after minimizing the possible factors of false torsion 1) with a head–mounted video device 2). Methods: The light–weighted measurement device, which consisted of a video–camera, a coaxial light source, and a laser hologram pointer, was fixed to the subject's head with a mouth–bite. In 11 normal subjects and 10 patients with congenital and acquired SO palsy, digital images of the iris pattern were captured while they monocularly gazed a fixation target projected on a wall at a randomly selected head–tilt angle (0 to 40 degrees in both sides). With NIH Image, s–OCR was evaluated by measuring the inclination of a line connecting the centroids of the corneal light reflex and the iris pattern. The amplitude of s–OCR was obtained by fitting a theoretical curve to the measures. Results: When tilting the head in the paretic side, the mean amplitude (±SD) of s–OCR for the paretic eye (3.0±4.6 deg) was smaller than that for the normal eyes (7.6±3.2 deg) both in congenital and acquired cases: the patients who had short duration of the disorder and/or SO atrophy tended to have a smaller amplitude. When tilting the head in the non–paretic side, the mean amplitude for the paretic eyes (7.6±2.7 deg) was almost equal to that for the normal eyes in patients with congenital SO palsy, whereas the amplitude differed widely among patients (4.0±7.0 deg) in patients with acquired SO palsy. Conclusions: The amplitude of s–OCR differs between patients with congenital SO palsy and with acquired SO palsy and reflects their pathologic condition. 1) Jampel RS, Shi DX. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:1331–40. 2) Hasebe S, Hamasaki I, Ohtsuki H. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:1805.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only