4.5 Article

Distinct patterns of hippocampal subfield volume loss in left and right mesial temporal lobe epilepsy

期刊

NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 42, 期 4, 页码 1411-1421

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-020-04653-6

关键词

Epilepsy; Temporal lobe; Hippocampus; Magnetic resonance imaging

资金

  1. Iran's National Elites Foundation
  2. National Institute for Medical Research Development
  3. Cognitive Sciences & Technologies Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrates distinct patterns of hippocampal subfield atrophy in patients with left and right mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (mTLE), suggesting that the pathophysiology of epileptogenesis in left and right mTLE may be different.
Objective To investigate the pattern and severity of hippocampal subfield volume loss in patients with left and right mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (mTLE) using quantitative MRI volumetric analysis. Methods A total of 21 left and 14 right mTLE subjects, as well as 15 healthy controls, were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. A publically available magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain volumetry system (volBrain) was used for volumetric analysis of hippocampal subfields. The T1-weighted images were processed with a HIPS pipeline. Results A distinct pattern of hippocampal subfield atrophy was found between left and right mTLE patients when compared with controls. Patients with left mTLE exhibited ipsilateral hippocampal atrophy and segmental volume depletion of the Cornu Ammonis (CA) 2/CA3, CA4/dentate gyrus (DG), and strata radiatum-lacunosum-moleculare (SR-SL-SM). Those with right mTLE exhibited similar ipsilateral hippocampal atrophy but with additional segmental CA1 volume depletion. More extensive bilateral subfield volume loss was apparent with right mTLE patients. Conclusion We demonstrate that left and right mTLE patients show a dissimilar pattern of hippocampal subfield atrophy, suggesting the pathophysiology of epileptogenesis in left and right mTLE to be different.

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