RESUMO
PURPOSE: To present the clinical characteristics of a group of patients with the diagnosis of chiasmal syndrome who attended a large ophthalmological institute. METHODS: Retrospective, observational clinical study with the review of medical records of patients with a diagnosis of chiasmal syndrome. The following variables were assessed: demographic characteristics, chief complaint upon presentation, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), presence or absence of diplopia, pupillary responses, optic nerve head morphology, etiology, and results from the ancillary tests including Ishihara test, Goldmann visual field (GVF) perimetry and neuroimaging. RESULTS: A total of 104 met the inclusion criteria, with a median age of 52 years (range 4-86 years). Fifty-four patients (51.9%) were referred to our institution with a diagnosis of a causative etiology for chiasmal syndrome, while in 50 (48.1%) the diagnosis was performed at our center. The most common presenting symptom was low visual acuity in 57 patients (54.8%), and the most common GVF defect was bitemporal hemianopsia in 39 patients (78 eyes, 39.8%). Pupillary abnormalities were present in 58 patients (55.7%), the optic nerve revealed pallor at any degree in 67 patients (64.4%) and the Ishihara test was affected in 65 patients (62.5%). The most common diagnosis was pituitary macroadenoma. CONCLUSION: The ophthalmologist participates in the diagnosis and rehabilitation of patients with chiasmal syndrome. Low visual acuity is the most common symptom at presentation, and bitemporal hemianopia the most frequent GVF defect. Examination of the optic nerve head and pupillary responses, and ancillary tests including Ishihara test and neuroimaging are relevant for diagnosis.
RESUMO
A 12 year-old girl patient with a history of ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement at the age of 6 months presented with progressive bilateral decrease in visual acuity. Ophthalmologic examination was consistent with bilateral papilledema. No other systemic manifestations of increased intracranial pressure were evident and laboratory work-up excluded other inflammatory or infectious processes. We present here an interesting case of a patient with ophthalmologic manifestations as the initial finding of ventriculoperitoneal shunt dysfunction.