4.6 Article

Type-2 diabetes mellitus reduces cortical thickness and decreases oxidative metabolism in sensorimotor regions after stroke

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0271678X17703887

关键词

Chronic stroke; creatine; magnetic resonance imaging; magnetic resonance spectroscopy; volumetrics

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  3. Canada Research Chairs program
  4. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [MOP-106651]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Individuals with type-2 diabetes mellitus experience poor motor outcomes after ischemic stroke. Recent research suggests that type-2 diabetes adversely impacts neuronal integrity and function, yet little work has considered how these neuronal changes affect sensorimotor outcomes after stroke. Here, we considered how type-2 diabetes impacted the structural and metabolic function of the sensorimotor cortex after stroke using volumetric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS). We hypothesized that the combination of chronic stroke and type-2 diabetes would negatively impact the integrity of sensorimotor cortex as compared to individuals with chronic stroke alone. Compared to stroke alone, individuals with stroke and diabetes had lower cortical thickness bilaterally in the primary somatosensory cortex, and primary and secondary motor cortices. Individuals with stroke and diabetes also showed reduced creatine levels bilaterally in the sensorimotor cortex. Contralesional primary and secondary motor cortex thicknesses were negatively related to sensorimotor outcomes in the paretic upper-limb in the stroke and diabetes group such that those with thinner primary and secondary motor cortices had better motor function. These data suggest that type-2 diabetes alters cerebral energy metabolism, and is associated with thinning of sensorimotor cortex after stroke. These factors may influence motor outcomes after stroke.

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

4.6
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