4.2 Article

Does a small posterior fossa increase nerve vascular conflict in trigeminal neuralgia?

期刊

ACTA RADIOLOGICA
卷 56, 期 12, 页码 1514-1518

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0284185114561914

关键词

Trigeminal neuralgia; magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); volume; trigeminal nerve

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea [2012R1A1A1042282]
  2. Chungbuk National University Hospital, Cheongju-si, Republic of Korea
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2012R1A1A1042282] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be helpful in visualizing neurovascular conflict (NVC) of the trigeminal nerve in patients with trigeminal neuralgia (TN), but the relationship between these two events is controversial. Purpose: To investigate whether posterior fossa volume is a predisposing factor for NVC in TN. Material and Methods: We conducted a case-control study of clinically diagnosed idiopathic TN of 30 patients aged 30-79 years and 30 age-and sex-matched controls. We compared the volume of the posterior fossa and subarachnoid space using fast-imaging employing steady-state acquisition MRI and the iPlan (R) programme of BrainLab. Results: The posterior fossa volumes in controls and patients with TN were 168.97 cm(3) and 167.63 cm(3), respectively. A small pontomesencephalic cistern volume was more frequent in TN. However, neither the cisternal nor parenchymal portions of the posterior fossa were different between patients with TN and controls, and no significant volume difference was observed in this study. Conclusion: Although the hypothesis that small posterior fossa volume influences TN was feasible, we did not find any volumetric differences (including the cisternal and parenchymal volumes). However, small pontomesencephalic cistern volumes were more frequent in patients with TN.

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

4.2
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