4.7 Article

The olfactory bulb volume in patients with idiopathic Parkinson's disease

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 7, Pages 1068-1073

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/ene.12709

Keywords

idiopathic Parkinson's disease; Lewy body pathology; MR volumetry; non-motor symptoms; olfaction; olfactory bulb volume; olfactory dysfunction; smell function

Funding

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research [01GI1008C]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and purposeThis study addresses the question of whether the neuropathological findings on the olfactory bulb (OB) in idiopathic Parkinson's disease (IPD) correspond to a detectable change in volume of the OB. Additionally, the relationship between OB volume and residual olfactory function, clinical disease characteristics and age are investigated. MethodsFifty-two IPD patients were investigated and compared to 31 healthy age-matched controls. All participants were scanned using a 3 T magnetic resonance imaging MRI scanner including a T2 DRIVE sequence in coronal slices through the OB. The OB volumes were measured via manual segmentation of the OB. Olfactory testing was carried out using the Sniffin' Sticks test battery. ResultsThe OB volume in the IPD group was 42.1mm(3) (SD11.6) for the right and 41.5mm(3) (SD +/- 11.7) for the left OB and showed no difference from the controls. Additionally, there were no significant correlations between OB volume and disease characteristics such as disease duration or Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale motor score. Likewise, patients' residual smell function did not correlate with their OB volume. In contrast, controls indicated a correlation between smell function and OB volume. ConclusionThe study shows that high resolution MRI does not show a detectable volume loss of the OB in PD patients. It is concluded that OB measurement using invivo high resolution MRI at 3 T is not helpful to identify IPD.

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