4.3 Article

Correlation between crossed cerebellar diaschisis and clinical neurological scales

期刊

ACTA NEUROLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 125, 期 6, 页码 373-381

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2011.01576.x

关键词

crossed cerebellar diaschisis; stroke; positron emission tomography; clinical stroke scales; cerebral blood flow; cerebral glucose metabolic rate; imaging surrogate

资金

  1. Gedeon Richter Chemical Works Plc., Budapest

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background -A common consequence of unilateral stroke is crossed cerebellar diaschisis (CCD), a decrease in regional blood flow (CBF) and metabolism (CMRglu) in the cerebellar hemisphere contralateral to the affected cerebral hemisphere. Former studies indicated a poststroke time-dependent relationship between the degree of CCD and the clinical status of acute and sub-acute stroke patients, but no study has been performed in post-stroke patients. Objectives -The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the quantitative correlation between the degree of CCD and the values of clinical stroke scales in poststroke patients. Materials and Methods -We measured with positron emission tomography (PET) regional CBF and CMRglu values in the affected cortical regions and the contralateral cerebellum in ten ischaemic post-stroke patients. Based on these quantitative parameters, the degree of diaschisis (DoD) was calculated, and the DoD values were correlated with three clinical stroke scales [ Barthel Index, Orgogozo Scale and Scandinavian Neurological Scale (SNS)]. Results -There were significant linear correlations between all clinical stroke scales and the CCD values (Barthel Index and Orgogozo Scale: P < 0.001, for both CBF and CMRglu; SNS: P = 0.007 and P = 0.044; CBF and CMRglu, respectively). Conclusions -The findings indicate that DoD can be used as a quantitative indicator of the functional impairments following stroke, i. e. it can serve as a potential surrogate of the severity of the damage.

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

4.3
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