Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • Low-Field MRI
    • Alzheimer Disease
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • View All
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home

User menu

  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

ASHNR American Society of Functional Neuroradiology ASHNR American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology ASSR
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • Low-Field MRI
    • Alzheimer Disease
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • View All
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds

AJNR Awards, New Junior Editors, and more. Read the latest AJNR updates

Research ArticlePEDIATRICS

Usefulness of MR Imaging in Children without Characteristic Clinical Findings of Duane’s Retraction Syndrome

Jae Hyoung Kim and Jeong-Min Hwang
American Journal of Neuroradiology April 2005, 26 (4) 702-705;
Jae Hyoung Kim
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeong-Min Hwang
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Duane’s retraction syndrome (DRS) consists of a congenital abduction deficit of the eyeball accompanied by retraction of the globe on attempted adduction and by upshoots or downshoots of the affected eye on adduction. These characteristic diagnostic signs of DRS, however, might not be manifested in early childhood. We evaluated the usefulness of MR imaging as a diagnostic tool in such cases.

METHODS: Thin-section gradient-echo imaging at the brain stem level was performed in two pediatric patients with only abduction deficit and 10 control children. Imaging findings were analyzed focused on the presence or absence of the abducens nerve.

RESULTS: The abducens nerve on the affected side was absent in three of three affected eyes in two patients. The right and left abducens nerves were well identified in all 10 control subjects.

CONCLUSION: MR imaging is useful for the differential diagnosis of abduction deficit of the eyeball in pediatric patients. The absence of the abducens nerve suggests DRS strongly in children with abduction deficit.

Duane’s retraction syndrome (DRS) consists of a congenital abduction deficit accompanied by retraction of the globe on attempted adduction and by upshoots or downshoots of the affected eye on adduction (1). A few pathologic examinations revealed that the abducens nucleus and nerve corresponding to the side with the abduction deficit is absent or hypoplastic from the brain stem in the patients with DRS (2–4). The incidence of severe retraction on adduction and the presence of upshoots and downshoots, which are clinically considered diagnostic signs of DRS in patients with abduction deficit, however, were reported to be significantly lower in children with DRS than in adults (5, 6). Thus, many children with DRS present only with an abduction deficit before later developing these typical diagnostic signs of DRS, such as globe retraction or upshoots or downshoots. Common differential diagnoses in children with only abduction deficit include DRS, 6th nerve palsy, and infantile esotropia. Two recent articles reported the absence of the abducens nerve on MR imaging in some patients with DRS (7, 8).

We recently noted the absence of the abducens nerve in two children with only congenital abduction deficit and without other characteristic diagnostic signs of DRS. We hypothesized that thin-section MR imaging would depict the abducens nerve and thereby help differentiate DRS from other diagnoses. In this study, we also performed thin-section MR imaging in 10 unaffected children and evaluated the presence or absence of the abducens nerve.

Methods

Two children with only abduction deficit among the characteristic findings of DRS between May 2003 and April 2004 were included in this study. The first patient, a 6-year-old boy, was referred for congenital abduction deficit of the right eye. He had orthotropia in the primary position and at left gaze. At right gaze, severe esotropia of 45 prism diopters (Δ) was found with a marked abduction deficit of −4 out of a grading from −4 (maximal limitation) to 0 (full rotation) in the right eye. The second patient, a 4-year-old girl, was referred for esotropia. She had mild intermittent esotropia of 12 Δ in the primary position and a marked abduction deficits of −4 in both eyes. Neither patient showed any definite retraction of the globe on attempted adduction or upshoots or downshoots of the right eye on adduction. Medical histories of both patients were noncontributory.

Ten children (age range, 4–10 years; mean age, 7 years) were included as control subjects to evaluate the accuracy of thin-section MR imaging to depict the abducens nerve. They were selected from the patients who underwent brain MR imaging for headache without other neurologic symptoms, including ocular movement abnormality. Institutional review board approval was not required for this study. Informed consent was obtained from parents of all patients and control subjects.

MR imaging was conducted by using a 1.5T system (Gyroscan Intera; Philips, Best, the Netherlands) with a SENSE head coil and a 3D balanced turbo field-echo sequence. Scanning was performed in an axial plane to include the pons and medulla oblongata, to visualize the cisternal segment of the abducens nerve, by using the following parameters: TR/TE, 6 ms/3 ms; flip angle, 60°; FOV, 176 × 220 mm; matrix, 282 × 352; section thickness, 1.4 mm (0.7-mm overlap with adjacent section); 50 sections; sense factor, 2; scan time, 3 minutes 28 seconds. Reconstruction was performed with zero filling in all three directions, which yielded a voxel size of 0.43 × 0.43 × 0.7 mm.

On MR images, the entire paths of the right and left abducens nerves were traced from the level of the upper medulla oblongata to the level of the upper pons (Fig 1). If the entire cisternal segment of the nerve was not identified, we considered it absent. If the nerve was identified within a limited length from the cisternal segment, we considered it an undetermined case.

Fig 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 1.

Normal abducens nerves.

A–C, Three axial MR images show the entire path of the right and left abducens nerves (arrows) as linear dark structures emerging from the pontomedullary sulcus (A), coursing in the superior oblique direction (B), and finally entering into the clivus (C).

Results

The entire cisternal segment of the right and left abducens nerves was well identified in all 10 control subjects. In the first patient, with abduction deficit of the right eye, the right abducens nerve was not identified (Fig 2). In the second patient, with abduction deficits of both eyes, right and left abducens nerves were not identified (Fig 3). There was no undetermined case.

Fig 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 2.

A 6-year-old boy with absence of right abducens nerve.

A, Nine-gaze photograph shows ocular versions demonstrating abduction deficit in the right eye.

B–D, Three axial MR images show the entire path of the left abducens nerve (arrows) as a linear dark structure emerging from the level of pontomedullary junction (A), coursing in the superior oblique direction (B), and finally entering into the clivus (C). The right abducens nerve is not identified.

Fig 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 3.

A 4-year-old girl with absence of right and left abducens nerves.

A, Nine-gaze photograph shows ocular versions demonstrating abduction deficit in both eyes.

B–D, Right and left abducens nerves are not identified on the three axial MR images obtained from the pontomedullary junction to the lower pons.

Discussion

This study describes three eyes of two children with abduction deficit that seemed to result from DRS. They presented with only abduction deficit and no other characteristic signs of DRS. They underwent MR imaging to verify the presence or absence of the abducens nerve, and the abducens nerve on the affected side was not identified.

The diagnosis of DRS is essentially based on a clinical examination, which is not difficult when patients present clinically with characteristic signs. Some children with DRS, however, present only with abduction deficit and no other diagnostic signs of DRS, such as globe retraction, upshoot, or downshoot (5, 6). These other diagnostic signs of DRS develop later, because the lateral rectus becomes more inelastic or fibrotic over time (1, 5, 6). The frequency of correct diagnosis of DRS in children with abduction deficit is reported to be 54% by age 14 months and to increase to 87.5% at 35 months (5). Therefore, cases with only abduction deficit can pose a challenge to the clinician in terms of identifying the etiologic cause.

The most common differential diagnoses of abduction deficit in children include DRS, 6th nerve palsy, and infantile esotropia. The differentiation of DRS from 6th nerve palsy is important because the work-up procedures and the surgical managements of these conditions are different and misdiagnosis can have serious consequences (9). Recession of a rectus muscle is more effective and less traumatic than a resection in treating DRS. Transposition procedure and resection of lateral recti, which are effective in 6th nerve palsy, may worsen the upshoots and the globe retraction and may also produce a marked adduction deficit in DRS (5, 9). In addition, if MR imaging in a patient with abduction deficit shows intact abducens nerves, further study to exclude mass lesions as a cause of abduction deficit should be performed.

Only two reports have addressed the MR imaging findings of DRS (7, 8). One report of one case revealed the absence of the abducens nerve on MR imaging (7), and the other reported that six (54.5%) of 11 eyes (eight cases) with DRS did not have the abducens nerve on the affected side (8). These studies support that a failure to visualize the entire path of the abducens nerve on MR imaging in cases of DRS reflect aplasia and hypoplasia of the nerve. Although even high-resolution, thin-section MR imaging cannot perfectly differentiate aplasia from severe hypoplasia of the abducens nerve, nonvisualization of the abducens nerve on thin-section MR image is helpful for clarifying DRS in patients without clinically characteristic diagnostic signs. This study revealed the absence of the abducens nerve in such cases.

Conclusion

MR imaging is useful for the differential diagnosis of abduction deficit of the eyeball in pediatric patients. The absence of the abducens nerve strongly suggests DRS in children with abduction deficit. Further detailed studies with a larger number of patients are required.

References

  1. ↵
    Duane A. Congenital deficiency of abduction associated with impairment of adduction, retraction movements, contraction of the palpebral fissure and oblique movements of the eye. Arch Ophthalmol 1905;34:133–159
  2. ↵
    Hotchkiss MG, Miller NR, Clark AW, Green WR. Bilateral Duane’s retraction syndrome: a clinical-pathologic case report. Arch Ophthalmol 1980;98:870–874
    CrossRefPubMed
  3. Miller NR, Kiel SM, Green WR, Clark AW. Unilateral Duane’s retraction syndrome (Type 1). Arch Ophthalmol 1982;100:1468–1472
    CrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    Hickey WF, Wagoner MD. Bilateral congenital absence of the abducens nerve. Virchows Arch A Pathol Anat Histopathol 1983;402:91–98
    CrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    Caputo AR, Wagner RS, Guo S, Santiago AP. Infantile abduction deficit: Duane’s retraction syndrome or abducens palsy? A study of 24 cases. Binocul Vis Strabismus Q 1996;11:213–216
  6. ↵
    Noonan CP, O’Connor M. Greater severity of clinical features in older patients with Duane’s retraction syndrome. Eye 1995;9:472–475
  7. ↵
    Ozkurt H, Basak M, Oral Y, Ozkurt Y. Magnetic resonance imaging in Duane’s retraction syndrome. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 2003;40:19–22
    PubMed
  8. ↵
    Parsa CF, Grant E, Dillon WP Jr, et al. Absence of the abducens nerve in Duane syndrome verified by magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;125:399–401
    CrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    Souza-Dias C. Congenital VI nerve palsy is Duane’s retraction syndrome until disproven. Binocul Vis Q 1992;7:70
  • Received May 30, 2004.
  • Accepted after revision August 20, 2004.
  • American Society of Neuroradiology
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 26 (4)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 26, Issue 4
1 Apr 2005
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Usefulness of MR Imaging in Children without Characteristic Clinical Findings of Duane’s Retraction Syndrome
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Cite this article
Jae Hyoung Kim, Jeong-Min Hwang
Usefulness of MR Imaging in Children without Characteristic Clinical Findings of Duane’s Retraction Syndrome
American Journal of Neuroradiology Apr 2005, 26 (4) 702-705;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
0 Responses
Respond to this article
Share
Bookmark this article
Usefulness of MR Imaging in Children without Characteristic Clinical Findings of Duane’s Retraction Syndrome
Jae Hyoung Kim, Jeong-Min Hwang
American Journal of Neuroradiology Apr 2005, 26 (4) 702-705;
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • MR Imaging of Congenital or Developmental Neuropathic Strabismus: Common and Uncommon Findings
  • High-Resolution 3D MR Imaging of the Trochlear Nerve
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Innervational and Extraocular Muscle Abnormalities in Duane-Radial Ray Syndrome
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence for Widespread Orbital Dysinnervation in Dominant Duane's Retraction Syndrome Linked to the DURS2 Locus
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • SyMRI & MR Fingerprinting in Brainstem Myelination
  • Comparison of Image Quality and Radiation Dose in Pediatric Temporal Bone CT Using Photon-Counting Detector CT and Energy-Integrating Detector CT
  • Dandy-Walker Phenotype with Brainstem Involvement
Show more Pediatrics

Similar Articles

Advertisement

Indexed Content

  • Current Issue
  • Accepted Manuscripts
  • Article Preview
  • Past Issues
  • Editorials
  • Editor's Choice
  • Fellows' Journal Club
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Video Articles

Cases

  • Case Collection
  • Archive - Case of the Week
  • Archive - Case of the Month
  • Archive - Classic Case

More from AJNR

  • Trainee Corner
  • Imaging Protocols
  • MRI Safety Corner

Multimedia

  • AJNR Podcasts
  • AJNR Scantastics

Resources

  • Turnaround Time
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Submit a Video Article
  • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
  • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Statistical Tips
  • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
  • Graphical Abstract Preparation
  • Imaging Protocol Submission
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • Publishing Checklists
  • Author Policies
  • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
  • News and Updates

About Us

  • About AJNR
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Board Alumni
  • Alerts
  • Permissions
  • Not an AJNR Subscriber? Join Now
  • Advertise with Us
  • Librarian Resources
  • Feedback
  • Terms and Conditions
  • AJNR Editorial Board Alumni

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Not an ASNR Member? Join Now

© 2025 by the American Society of Neuroradiology All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.
Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire