4.7 Article

Spinal cord atrophy in spinocerebellar ataxia type 3 and 6 -: Impact on clinical disability

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
Volume 255, Issue 8, Pages 1244-1249

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-008-0907-6

Keywords

spinocerebellar ataxia type 3 and type 6; spinal cord atrophy; MRI

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschu ngsgemeinschaft [SCHO 754/3-1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To quantify spinal cord atrophy and its impact on clinical disability in spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA) type 3 and 6. Methods Atrophy of the upper spinal cord was assessed by high resolution T1-weighted MRI of patients with SCA3 (n = 14) and SCA6 (n = 10). Furthermore, two groups of age- and sex-matched healthy control subjects (n = 24,) corresponding to the two SCA groups, were studied. Images were post-processed by a semi-automated volumetry method combining a marker based segmentation and an automatic histogram method facilitating highly reliable quantification and morphometry of the upper cervical cord in vivo. Results We found a significant reduction of normalized mean cross-sectional area of the spinal cord in SCA3 (p < 0.0005), whereas in SCA6 patients normalized mean cross-sectional area was in the normal range (p = 0.379). No correlation was found between spinal cord atrophy and disease duration as well as CAG repeat length in both sub-types. In SCA6 a negative dependency between clinical disability, as expressed by the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale as a well established ataxia score, and the mean cross-sectional area was found (p = 0.02). A similar correlation was observed in SCA3 but did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion Our results quantify for the first time in vivo spinal cord atrophy as a non-cerebellar neurodegenerative process in SCA3. Our results suggest MR volumetry of the upper cervical cord as a marker of functional importance in SCA3 and SCA6.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available