4.6 Review

Movement Disorders Associated with Moyamoya Disease: A Report of 4 New Cases and a Review of Literatures

期刊

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
卷 25, 期 10, 页码 1482-1486

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mds.23130

关键词

movement disorders; moyamoya disease; chorea; dystonia; dyskinesia

资金

  1. Yonsei Faculty Research Grants [6-2008-0236]
  2. Yonsei University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to define the clinical characteristics of patients who developed movement disorders in association with moyamoya disease (MMD). Using PubMed and medical records of our hospital from 1985 to 2008, we searched for patients who developed movement disorders in association with MMD. This study included 38 patients described in previous studies and 4 patients found in the medical records. The onset of movement disorders was thought to be sudden. In 13 patients, the movement disorders were precipitated by hyperventilation or emotional stress. Twenty-seven of the 42 patients developed chorea, 4 patients developed dystonia, and 4 developed a mixture of both. The movement disorders of the remaining 7 patients were described as dyskinesia. A third of the 42 patients developed bilateral movement disorders, and their mean age was younger than that of those with unilateral movement disorders. In 37 of the 42 patients, brain imaging studies showed ischemic lesions, but the remaining 5 patients showed no parenchymal lesions. Cerebral perfusion studies showed hypoperfusion in the basal ganglia and in the cerebral cortical areas. Most patients improved whether they were treated or not. MMD must be included in the differential diagnosis of the sudden onset of dyskinesias, particularly chorea and focal dystonia. Even in patients with no parenchymal lesion in brain imaging studies, cerebral angiography and cerebral blood perfusion studies must be performed, if they develop a sudden onset or recurrent movement disorders preceded by emotional stress or hyperventilation. (C) 2010 Movement Disorder Society

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

4.6
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