4.4 Article

Midline-shift corresponds to the amount of brain edema early after hemispheric stroke -: An MRI study in rats

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGICAL ANESTHESIOLOGY
卷 19, 期 2, 页码 105-110

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ANA.0b013e31802c7e33

关键词

animal research; cerebral edema; MR tomography; stroke; elevated ICP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vasogenic brain edema formation is a serious complication in hemispheric stroke. Its space-occupying effect can lead to midline-shift (MLS), cerebral herniation, and death. Clinical studies indicate that quantification of MLS can predict cerebral herniation and subsequent death at early time-points, even before clinical deterioration becomes apparent. The present experimental study was designed to determine the relation between MLS, absolute edema volume, lesion size, and clinical findings in a rat stroke model. Middle cerebral artery-occlusion was performed in 24 rats using the suture technique. Clinical evaluation and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (Bruker PharmaScan TOT) was performed 24 hours later. Lesion volume, the volume-increase within the affected hemisphere (%HEV), and MLS were quantified on T2-weighted images. The absolute increase of hemispheric water content (Delta H2O) was determined in a subgroup using the wet-dry method (n = 12). MLS correlated significantly with the total amount of brain edema (magnetic resonance imaging study: r = 0.82; P < 0.01; wet-dry analysis r = 0.80; P < 0.01). MLS correlated only moderately with T2-lesion volume (r = 0.55; P < 0.01). No significant correlation could be detected between MLS and clinical scores (r = 0.26; P > 0.05). MLS thus quantitatively reflects the amount of vasogenic brain edema within the affected hemisphere at early time-points. MLS quantification can be regarded as an easily assessable and valid global quantitative parameter for brain edema and thus might facilitate the surgical and nonsurgical management of edema in acute stroke patients.

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

4.4
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