4.5 Article

Relationship between 123I-FP-CIT-SPECT and motor severity in drug-naive patients with Parkinson's disease

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2021.117476

关键词

Parkinson' disease; I-123-FP-CIT-SPECT; Dopamine transporter; Gait analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The results of this study showed that I-123-FP-CIT-SPECT findings were significantly associated with motor severity and gait severity in drug-naive patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), particularly the mean specific binding ratios of the striatum and anterior putamen.
Introduction: Although functional imaging is useful for the diagnosis and pathophysiological evaluation of Parkinson's disease (PD), little is known about the relationship between functional imaging findings and PD clinical features. The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between I-123-FP-CIT-SPECT findings and motor symptoms, in particular gait disturbance. Methods: The study included 46 drug-naive patients with early-stage PD. The specific binding ratios (SBRs) in the striatum and its subregions, namely anterior/posterior putamen and caudate nucleus, were calculated in patients who underwent I-123-FP-CIT-SPECT. Motor symptoms were evaluated using the modified Hoehn and Yahr (HY) stage and the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) part III. Gait disturbance was evaluated by the mean gait cycle duration and the mean gait acceleration amplitude measured with a wearable sensor. Results: The mean SBRs of the striatum and anterior putamen were significantly associated with the modified HY stage and UPDRS part III score. The mean SBR of the caudate nucleus was significantly associated with the UPDRS part III score. The mean striatal SBR was also significantly associated with the mean gait cycle duration and mean gait acceleration amplitude. Conclusion: The mean striatal SBR, as determined by I-123-FP-CIT-SPECT, was significantly associated with motor severity and gait severity in drug-naive patients with PD.

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