4.5 Article

Clinical subtypes of anterocollis in parkinsonian syndromes

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 315, 期 1-2, 页码 100-103

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2011.11.017

关键词

Anterocollis; Head drop syndrome; Parkinson's disease; Dystonia; Myopathy

资金

  1. Bachmann-Strauss Dystonia Parkinson Foundation
  2. NIH/NCRR [UL1RR029882]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Disproportionate anterocollis is a debilitating condition which occurs in the later stages of parkinsonian syndromes and for which there is no effective therapy. Multiple hypotheses have been proposed to explain its underlying etiology, including myopathy of the cervical extensors, and dystonia of the cervical flexors. Methods: We examined the records of 39 patients (8 prospectively) with anterocollis and parkinsonian syndromes to explore demographics, historical and clinical data, findings from electromyography and response to therapies. We classified our patients based on whether or not they were weak on neck extension and also based on primary diagnosis (PD vs atypical parkinsonian syndrome). Demographic, clinical, historical and EMG features are reported for each group. Results: There were no significant demographic differences between clinical subtypes, or primary diagnosis. Electromyographic (EMG) findings demonstrated myopathic changes in both groups, although they were more prominent in the group which was weak in extension. Historical features were similar between groups except for dopamine agonist use, which was more common in the myopathic subgroup (p = 0.02). There were no other significant clinical differences between clinical subtypes or primary diagnosis with the exception that patients with atypical parkinsonian syndromes had more advanced motor symptoms. Conclusions: We conclude that anterocollis is a heterogeneous condition in which at least two distinct subtypes exist. Recognizing these subtypes may help guide therapy and future research. (c) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据