PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11096764

Blepharospasm and Hemifacial Spasm.

Abstract

The main objective in the treatment of blepharospasm is to decrease or cease the unwanted, repeated forced closure of the eyelids. This is best achieved by the use of botulinum toxin. In a minority of patients, botulinum toxin is either ineffective or poorly tolerated. In this group of patients, a trial with oral medication in the following order is warranted: trihexyphenidyl, baclofen, clonazepam, and tetrabenazine. Before going to the next medication, each of these drugs should be administered at the highest tolerated dosage for a period of 1 or 2 months. If, as often happens, all pharmacologic treatment attempts fail, and the patient is too disabled to remain untreated, he or she can be referred to an experienced plastic surgeon for a myectomy of the eyelid protractors. For treatment of apraxia of eyelid opening, botulinum toxin should be administered as the first treatment. If this fails, and vision is significantly impaired, the patient may be referred to a plastic surgeon for a frontalis suspension of the eyelid. Treatments of hemifacial spasm are aimed at decreasing or ending the annoying twitches of one side of the face. In this disorder, interference with vision is not a problem unless the contralateral eye is amblyopic. Despite isolated reports of spasm relief by drugs such as carbamazepine, oral medication is unlikely to be helpful. Botulinum toxin is the preferred treatment in hemifacial spasm patients. In some patients, relief from spasms can only be obtained at the cost of an ipsilateral upper lip droop of varying severity. Patients who are dissatisfied with the results of treatment with botulinum toxin, and are not willing to tolerate their condition, can be referred to an experienced neurosurgeon for microvascular decompression of the facial nerve. Pending success of ongoing attempts to reduce adverse effects, we believe that doxorubicin chemomyectomy, a recent treatment that has been used for both facial spasm and blepharospasm, is best administered in a research setting.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

DR Boghen, RL Lesser. 2000. Blepharospasm and Hemifacial Spasm.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11940-000-0037-7

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗