4.7 Article

Functional recovery of children and adolescents after cerebellar tumour resection

期刊

BRAIN
卷 128, 期 -, 页码 1428-1441

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/brain/awh385

关键词

ataxia; cerebellum; development; human; motor control

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined whether lesions to the cerebellum obtained in early childhood are better compensated than lesions in middle childhood or adolescence. Since cerebellar lesions might affect motor as well a cognitive performance, posture, upper limb and working memory function were assessed in 22 patients after resection of a cerebellar tumour (age at surgery 1-17 years, minimum 3 years post-surgery). Working memory was only impaired in those patients who had received chemo- or radiation therapy. Postural sway was enhanced in 64% of the patients during dynamic posturography conditions, which relied heavily on vestibular input for equilibrium control. Upper limb function was generally less impaired, but 54% of the patients revealed prolonged deceleration times in an arm pointing task, which probably does not reflect a genuine cerebellar deficit but rather the patients' adopted strategy to avoid overshooting. Age at surgery, time since surgery or lesion volume were poor predictors of motor or cognitive recovery. Brain imaging analysis revealed that lesions of all eight patients with abnormal posture who did not receive chemo- and/or radiation therapy included the fastigial and interposed nuclei (NF and NI). In patients with normal posture, NI and NF were spared. In 11 out of 12 patients with abnormal deceleration time, the region with the highest overlap included the NI and NF and dorsomedial portions of the dentate nuclei in 10 out of 12 patients. We conclude that cerebellar damage inflicted at a young age is not necessarily better compensated. The lesion site is critical for motor recovery, and lesions affecting the deep cerebellar nuclei are not fully compensated at any developmental age in humans.

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