4.5 Article

Cerebral Blood Flow Alterations in Acute Sport-Related Concussion

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA
卷 33, 期 13, 页码 1227-+

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/neu.2015.4072

关键词

arterial spin labeling; cerebral blood flow; concussion; MRI; recovery

资金

  1. NCATS NIH HHS [UL1 TR000055] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sport-related concussion (SRC) is a major health problem, affecting millions of athletes each year. While the clinical effects of SRC (e.g., symptoms and functional impairments) typically resolve within several days, increasing evidence suggests persistent neurophysiological abnormalities beyond the point of clinical recovery after injury. This study aimed to evaluate cerebral blood flow (CBF) changes in acute SRC, as measured using advanced arterial spin labeling (ASL) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We compared CBF maps assessed in 18 concussed football players (age, 17.8 +/- 1.5 years) obtained within 24 h and at 8 days after injury with a control group of 19 matched non-concussed football players. While the control group did not show any changes in CBF between the two time-points, concussed athletes demonstrated a significant decrease in CBF at 8 days relative to within 24 h. Scores on the clinical symptom (Sport Concussion Assessment Tool 3, SCAT3) and cognitive measures (Standardized Assessment of Concussion [SAC]) demonstrated significant impairment (vs. pre-season baseline levels) at 24 h (SCAT, p < 0.0001; SAC, p < 0.01) but returned to baseline levels at 8 days. Two additional computerized neurocognitive tests, the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics and Immediate Post-Concussion and Cognitive Testing, showed a similar pattern of changes. These data support the hypothesis that physiological changes persist beyond the point of clinical recovery after SRC. Our results also indicate that advanced ASL MRI methods might be useful for detecting and tracking the longitudinal course of underlying neurophysiological recovery from concussion.

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