4.7 Article

Clinical outcome and neuropsychological deficits after right decompressive hemicraniectomy in MCA infarction

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 249, 期 10, 页码 1433-1440

出版社

DR DIETRICH STEINKOPFF VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-002-0875-1

关键词

stroke; craniectomy; activities of daily living; neuropsychological tests; mortality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose. The purpose of this study was to analyse in detail the functional outcome and the neuropsychological deficits in patients with space-occupying infarction of the non-dominant hemisphere one year after surgery. Methods. Postoperative complications and retrospective consent to surgery were assessed in a semi-structured interview in 26 patients. Functional outcome was measured with the Barthel-Index (BI) and Rankin-Scale. Neuropsychological tests in 14 patients focused on visuo-spatial and visuo-constructive abilities, attention, spatial span and. self-rated mood. Results. The one-year survival rate was 69% (18 of 26). The functional outcome was good (BI greater than or equal to 90) in 3 patients, fairly good (BI 75-85) in 6, moderate (BI 30-70) in 6, and poor (BI 0-25) in 3 patients. Age was an independent predictor of outcome, patients above 52 years had a BI of 50 or below. Neuropsychological tests (14 of 18) showed profound attention deficits in all patients, and visuo-spatial and visuo-constructive deficits in patients with lower formal education. Retrospectively, 4 of 18 patients would not give consent to surgery again, mostly because of the bad quality of life postoperatively. Conclusion. Older patients do not seem to benefit from decompressive hemicraniectomy; more than half of the surviving younger patients have a good outcome and live independently. Attention deficits are prominent in all patients; visuo-spatial and constructive deficits are less pronounced in patients with higher formal education. Retrospective agreement to decompressive hemicraniectomy is high in patients with good functional outcome.

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