• Pediatric Infection and Vaccine
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.178-185
• /
• 2005

Purpose : Ocular adnexal and orbital infections are broadly divided into preseptal(periorbital) and postseptal(orbital) cellulitis by orbital septum. In this study, we investigated the difference between periorbital and orbital cellulitis regarding their pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, treatments, and prognosis. Methods : We reviewed medical records of 50 cases who were hospitalized in the Severance hospital due to orbital cellulitis from May 1995 to April 2004. Results : There were 32 males and 18 females. The mean age was $3.2{\pm}3.5$ year. According to the result of orbital computerized tomography, 36 cases were periorbital cellulitis, 10 cases orbital cellulitis and 4 cases not diagnosed. The clinical manifestations of periorbital cellulitis are periorbital swelling(100%), fever(19%), orbital pain(6%), and chemosis(22%). On the other hand, those of orbital cellulitis are periorbital swelling(100%), fever(80%), orbital pain(60%), proptosis(20%), chemosis(70%) and limitation of eye movement(20%). The etiologies of periorbital cellulitis are sinusitis(14%), upper respiratory infection(8%), conjunctivitis (19%), skin wound(14%) and unknown(44%). The etiologies of orbital cellulitis are sinusitis (50%), upper respiratory infection(20%), and unknown(30%). The first line antibiotics used in the majority of cases were combinations of cefoxitin+aminoglycoside. 5 patients with orbital cellulitis taking cefoxitin+aminoglycoside had to change the medication into vancomycin or clindamycin. 3 patients with orbital cellulitis underwent operation while 1 patient developed bacterial meningitis. Conclusion : According to invasion of orbit, ocular adnexal and orbital infections are quite different in their pathogenesis, treatment and prognosis. As atypical cases may confound the diagnosis, prompt orbital computerized tomography is required for an accurate diagnosis.

• Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics
• /
• v.49 no.8
• /
• pp.845-850
• /
• 2006

Purpose : To assess the incidence of neonatal hearing loss in a neonatal intensive care unit and the relative importance of risk factors for hearing imparement in a neonatal intensive care unit which the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing(JCIH) had recommended. Methods : One thousand, two hundred and one newborns admitted to the Good Moonhwa Intensive Care Unit from May 2003 to December 2005 were assesed using the automated auditory brainstem response(AABR). The screening was performed on those aged more than 36 weeks and weighing more than 2,200 g. We divided the infants into two groups, 'pass' and 'refer'. The 'refer' group were retested one month later, and if classified as 'refer' during the retest, were referred to a hearing impairment clinic. Results : From the 1,201 neonates, 1,187(98.8 percent) passed the test and 14(1.2 percent) failed. 293(24.4 percent) of the 1,201 neonates had a risk factor for hearing impairment; 282(96.2 percent) passed the test and 11(3.8 percent) failed. The group with risk factors were shown to have a higher incidence of hearing loss(P<0.001). The neonates in the refer group were shown to have a higher incidence of ototoxic drugs(P<0.001), low birth weight(<1,500 g)(P<0.001) and craniofacial anomalies(P=0.007). On the other hand, there were no statistical differences between the pass and refer groups in congenital infection, hyperbilirubinemia, bacterial meningitis, low Apgar scores, prolonged mechanical ventilation and syndromes known to include hearing loss. Conclusion : In order to identify hearing-impaired infants within an appropriate period, neonatal hearing screening tests and identification of the risk factors for neonatal hearing loss are important.