4.2 Article

Multimodality neuroimaging evaluation improves the detection of subtle cortical dysplasia in seizure patients

期刊

NEUROLOGICAL RESEARCH
卷 25, 期 1, 页码 53-57

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1179/016164103101201111

关键词

magnetoencephalography; magnetic resonance imaging; focal cortical dysplasia; single photon emission computed tomography; epilepsy

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [NS37941-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [R01NS037941] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study is to investigate if multimodality neuroimaging evaluation increases the detection of subtle focal cortical dysplasia as part of an epilepsy surgery evaluation. Three patients with normal magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological findings of focal cortical dysplasia were reviewed. Their magnetoencephalography recordings were performed on whole-head magnetoencephalography system. Magnetic resonance images were re-evaluated with special inspection in limited regions guided by magnetoencephalography spike localization. Two patients had ictal and interictal single photon emission computed tomography study after administration of Tc99m ECD. In two patients we found tiny focal abnormalities including slightly increased cortical thickness and blurred gray-white matter junction at the locations of interictal events after re-evaluation of the MR images indicating focal cortical dysplasia. The third patient showed focal atrophic change. All patients are seizure free after surgery. Both ictal and interictal single photon emission computed tomography showed hyperperfusion in the dysplastic cortex regions. Multimodality neuroimaging study can improve the detection of focal cortical dysplasia. Normal magnetic resonance images should be re-evaluated for subtle signs of focal cortical dysplasia especially when magnetoencephalography recording demonstrate focal epileptic discharges. [Neurol Res 2003; 25: 53-57].

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

4.2
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