4.4 Article

Prognostic Importance of Lesion Location on Functional Outcome in Patients with Cerebellar Ischemic Stroke: a Prospective Pilot Study

期刊

CEREBELLUM
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 257-261

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12311-015-0757-6

关键词

Ataxia; Cerebellum; Early diagnosis; Infarction; Prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To date, few studies focused on prediction of functional recovery after cerebellar stroke. The main aim of this prospective pilot study was to determine the association between cerebellar lesion location and functional outcome in adults with acute cerebellar infarction. We examined 14 patients with first-ever unilateral cerebellar ischemic stroke within 7 days and at 90 days from the onset of stroke by means of the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale. Cerebellar lesions were traced from magnetic resonance imaging performed within 72 h since stroke and region of interest were generated. The association between the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale score and lesion location was determined with the voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping methods implemented in the MRIcro software. Colored lesion-symptom maps representing the z statistics were generated and overlaid onto the MNI-ICBM 152 linear probabilistic atlas of the human brain and the Johns Hopkins University white matter templates. Our results documented that injuries to the V, VI, VIIA Crus I, VIIA Crus II, VIIB, VIIIA, and VIIIB lobules and the middle cerebellar peduncle are significantly associated with the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) score at 1 week after the onset of stroke. Furthermore, we found that injuries to the VI, VIIA Crus I, VIIA Crus II, VIIB, VIIIA, and VIIIB lobules, the dentate nucleus, and the middle cerebellar peduncle are significantly associated with the ICARS score at 3 months since the cerebellar stroke onset. The findings of this pilot study might improve prognostic accuracy of functional outcome in patients with acute cerebellar infarction.

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

4.4
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