4.5 Article

Automated subfield volumetric analysis of hippocampus in temporal lobe epilepsy using high-resolution T2-weighed MR imaging

Journal

NEUROIMAGE-CLINICAL
Volume 12, Issue -, Pages 57-64

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2016.06.008

Keywords

Temporal lobe epilepsy; Hippocampal subfields; Automatic segmentation; MRI; Hippocampal sclerosis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and purpose: Automated subfield volumetry of hippocampus is desirable for use in temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE), but its utility has not been established. Automatic segmentation of hippocampal subfields (ASHS) and the new version of FreeSurfer software (ver. 6.0) using high-resolution T2-weighted MR imaging are candidates for this volumetry. The aimof this study was to evaluate hippocampal subfields in TLE patients using ASHS as well as the old and new versions of FreeSurfer. Materials and methods: We recruited 50 consecutive unilateral TLE patients including 25 with hippocampal sclerosis (TLE-HS) and 25 without obvious etiology (TLE-nonHS). All patients and 45 healthy controls underwent high-resolution T2-weighted and 3D-volume T1-weighted MRI scanning. We analyzed all of their MR images by FreeSurfer ver. 5.3, ver. 6.0 and ASHS. For each subfield, normalized z-scores were calculated and compared among groups. Results: In TLE-HS groups, ASHS and FreeSurfer ver. 6.0 revealed maximal z-scores in ipsilateral cornu ammonis (CA) 1, CA4 and dentate gyrus (DG), whereas in FreeSurfer ver. 5.3 ipsilateral subiculum showed maximal z-scores. In TLE-nonHS group, there was no significant volume reduction by either ASHS or FreeSurfer. Conclusions: ASHS and the new version of FreeSurfer may have an advantage in compatibility with existing histopathological knowledge in TLE patients with HS compared to the old version of FreeSurfer (ver. 5.3), although further investigations with pathological findings and/or surgical outcomes are desirable. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available