4.7 Article

Nerve atrophy in severe trigeminal neuralgia: Noninvasive confirmation at MR imaging - Initial experience

期刊

RADIOLOGY
卷 238, 期 2, 页码 689-692

出版社

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2382042214

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01-HL-0690036-02] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [5R01AG021790-03] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To retrospectively evaluate the size of the trigeminal nerve on magnetic resonance (MR) images of patients with unilateral trigeminal neuralgia. Materials and Methods: Institutional review board approval was obtained and informed consent was waived for this HIPAA-compliant study. The sizes of the trigeminal nerves in 31 patients (18 men and 13 women; mean, age, 68 years; age range, 44-84 years) with clinically confirmed intractable unilateral trigeminal neuralgia were measured before treatment with gamma knife radiosurgery. Images Were analyzed separately by two neuroradiologists who were blinded, to the side of the face with symptoms. Coronal projection images were used to determine the diameter and cross-sectional area of the trigeminal nerves at 5 mm, from the entry point of the nerve into the pons. Comparisons were made by using a paired t test. Interobserver variability was assessed by using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Results: The mean diameter of the trigeminal nerve on the symptomatic side was significantly smaller than the mean diameter on the asymptomatic side in 30 of 31 patients (2.11 mm +/- 0.40 [standard deviation] and 2.62 mm +/- 0.56, P < .001, 95% confidence interval: -0.35, -0.67 mm). The mean cross-sectional area on the symptomatic side was significantly smaller than the area on the asymptomatic side in 27 of 31 patients (4.50 mm(2) +/- 1.75 and 6.28 mm(2) +/- 2.19, P < .001, 95% confidence interval: -2.41, -1.16 mm(2)). Conclusion: The results indicate that trigeminal nerve atrophy can be depicted noninvasively in patients with trigeminal,neuralgla. (c) RSNA, 2006.

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

4.7
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