[ XXXX in childhood: our experience and a review of literature].

@entity1 @entity1158 @entity500 @entity4610 @entity76 @entity15 @entity288
INTRODUCTION: @entity15 ( @entity15 ) is infrequent in childhood (0.3-2% of all cases of @entity15 ). At the present time more and more paediatric @entity1 are being described. In this paper we describe our experience. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We review seven @entity1 diagnosed as having @entity15 before the age of 16, between 1984 and 1996. We have recorded: age, sex, personal and family history, form of onset and clinical course. CSF, neurophysiological and neuroimaging tests, treatment and diagnostic category according to the criteria of Poser. RESULTS: Four @entity1 and three @entity1 aged between three and thirteen years at the onset of the disorder. In one case there was a family history of @entity15 . The most frequent form of onset was hemiparesia, followed by @entity4610 and @entity76 . Six cases followed a recurrent-remittent course and one followed a secondarily progressive course. There were oligoclonal bands (OGB) in the CSF in three cases. Visual evoked potentials (VEP) were abnormal in six cases. Magnetic resonance (RM) was a great help in diagnosis and in six cases was very informative. Six @entity1 were treated with @entity288 during the acute phase and two with long-term @entity500 . CONCLUSION: The commonest form of presentation, hemiparesia, makes the differential diagnosis with acute @entity1158 of childhood obligatory. Neurophysiological techniques, especially the VEP are very useful for initial assessment. RM is the most sensitive method, although it is not specific for diagnosis. The average follow-up period (4.5 years) is too short to determine the prognosis.
