4.6 Review

The neurophysiology of brain injury

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 115, 期 1, 页码 4-18

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S1388-2457(03)00258-X

关键词

acceleration; brain hemorrhage; traumatic; deceleration; diffuse axonal injury; electrophysiology; neurophysiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This article reviews the mechanisms and pathophysiology of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods: Research on the pathophysiology of diffuse and focal TBI is reviewed with an emphasis on damage that occurs at the cellular level. The mechanisms of injury are discussed in detail including the factors and time course associated with mild to severe diffuse injury as well as the pathophysiology of focal injuries. Examples of electrophysiologic procedures consistent with recent theory and research evidence are presented. Results: Acceleration/deceleration (A/D) forces rarely cause shearing of nervous tissue, but instead, initiate a pathophysiologic process with a well defined temporal progression. The injury foci are considered to be diffuse trauma to white matter with damage occurring at the superficial layers of the brain, and extending inward as A/D forces increase. Focal injuries result in primary injuries to neurons and the surrounding cerebrovasculature, with secondary damage occurring due to ischemia and a cytotoxic cascade. A subset of electrophysiologic procedures consistent with current TBI research is briefly reviewed. Conclusions: The pathophysiology of TBI occurs over time, in a pattern consistent with the physics of injury. The development of electrophysiologic procedures designed to detect specific patterns of change related to TBI may be of most use to the neurophysiologist. Significance: This article provides an up-to-date review of the mechanisms and pathophysiology of TBI and attempts to address misconceptions in the existing literature. (C) 2004 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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