4.6 Article

Comparison of cerebral blood flow in computed tomographic hypodense areas of the brain in head-injured patients

期刊

NEUROSURGERY
卷 52, 期 2, 页码 340-345

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000043931.83041.AA

关键词

brain contusion; brain ischemia; cerebral blood flow; computed tomography; head injury; xenon-enhanced computed tomography

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [P01-NS38660] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: Hypodense lesions identified on computed tomographic (CT) scans are often assumed to indicate ischemia. The purpose of this study was to investigate regional cerebral blood flow, (rCBF) in hypodense areas of the brain after severe traumatic brain injury. METHODS: CBF was measured by stable xenon-enhanced CT scans. Hypodense areas were identified, and rCBF values as well as CT density were averaged for the region. RESULTS: Thirty (60%) of the 50 patients had a total of 45 hypodense regions; which were associated with either contusion (n = 30) or areas of infarction (n = 15). rCBF in the hypodense regions was variable, ranging from a low of 3.3 to a high of 72.5 ml/100 g/min. The cause of the lesion was the major factor associated with the. level of rCBF. Although the average decrease-in CT density was similar for the two types of lesions, the average rCBF was significantly lower and the difference in rCBF between the lesion and the contralateral side was greater when the,hypodense lesion was associated with a contusion. A critical reduction in rCBF (<20 ml/100 g/min) was found in 19 (63%) of the hypodense regions associated with contusions but in only 4 (27%) of those from areas of infarction. CONCLUSION: Hypodensity on plain CT scans does not always indicate reduction in CBF. This association was found more commonly when the low-density area was associated with a contusion. In hypodense areas associated with infarction, rCBF was variable and not commonly in the ischemic range at the time the CBF measurement was obtained.

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

4.6
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