4.7 Article

Neuropathology of blepharospasm

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL NEUROLOGY
卷 346, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2021.113855

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found a significant reduction in Purkinje neuron and torpedo body density in patients with blepharospasm, but no changes in other measures. These results demonstrate subtle neuropathological changes similar to those reported in subjects with cervical dystonia, which may underlie some of the subtle imaging changes reported for blepharospasm.
Background: The dystonias are a group of disorders characterized by excessive muscle contractions leading to abnormal repetitive movements or postures. In blepharospasm, the face is affected, leading to excessive eye blinking and spasms of muscles around the eyes. The pathogenesis of blepharospasm is not well understood, but several imaging studies have implied subtle structural defects in several brain regions, including the cerebellum. Objective: To delineate cerebellar pathology in brains collected at autopsy from 7 human subjects with blepharospasm and 9 matched controls. Methods: Sections from 3 cerebellar regions were sampled and processed using Nissl and silver impregnation stains. Purkinje neurons were the focus of the evaluation, along with as several other subtle pathological features of cerebellar dysfunction such as Purkinje neuron axonal swellings (torpedo bodies), proliferation of basket cell processes around Purkinje neurons (hairy baskets), empty baskets (missing Purkinje neurons), and displacement of cell soma from their usual location (ectopic Purkinje neurons). Results: The results revealed a significant reduction in Purkinje neuron and torpedo body density, but no changes in any of the other measures. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate subtle neuropathological changes similar to those reported for subjects with cervical dystonia. These findings may underly some of the subtle imaging changes reported for blepharospasm.

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

4.7
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