4.6 Article

Dorsal component of the superior longitudinal fasciculus revisited: novel insights from a focused fiber dissection study

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY
卷 132, 期 4, 页码 1265-1278

出版社

AMER ASSOC NEUROLOGICAL SURGEONS
DOI: 10.3171/2018.11.JNS182908

关键词

fiber dissection technique; frontal lobe; SLF-I; superior longitudinal fasciculus; white matter anatomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to investigate the anatomical consistency, morphology, axonal connectivity, and correlative topography of the dorsal component of the superior longitudinal fasciculus (SLF-I) since the current literature is limited and ambiguous. METHODS Fifteen normal, adult, formalin-fixed cerebral hemispheres were studied through a medial to lateral fiber microdissection technique. In 5 specimens, the authors performed stepwise focused dissections of the lateral cerebral aspect to delineate the correlative anatomy between the SLF-I and the other two SLF subcomponents, namely the SLF-II and SLF-III. RESULTS The SLF-I was readily identified as a distinct fiber tract running within the cingulate or paracingulate gyrus and connecting the anterior cingulate cortex, the medial aspect of the superior frontal gyrus, the pre-supplementary motor area (pre-SMA), the SMA proper, the paracentral lobule, and the precuneus. With regard to the morphology of the SLF-I, two discrete segments were consistently recorded: an anterior and a posterior segment. A clear cleavage plane could be developed between the SLF-I and the cingulum, thus proving their structural integrity. Interestingly, no anatomical connection was revealed between the SLF-I and the SLF-II/SLF-III complex. CONCLUSIONS Study results provide novel and robust anatomical evidence on the topography, morphology, and subcortical architecture of the SLF-I. This fiber tract was consistently recorded as a distinct anatomical entity of the medial cerebral aspect, participating in the axonal connectivity of high-order paralimbic areas.

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