4.4 Article

Structural gray matter abnormalities in migraine relate to headache lateralization, but not aura

期刊

CEPHALALGIA
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 3-9

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0333102414532378

关键词

Migraine; aura; brain structure; magnetic resonance imaging

资金

  1. University of Copenhagen
  2. Lundbeck Foundation Center for Neurovascular Signalling (LUCENS)
  3. Danish Council for Independent Research-Medical Sciences (FSS) [271-08-0446]
  4. Novo Nordisk Foundation [R172-A14333]
  5. Research Foundation of the Capital Region of Denmark
  6. Novo Nordisk Fonden [NNF11OC1014333] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The hallmark of migraine aura (MA) is transient cortical dysfunction but it is not known if MA is associated with structural cortical or subcortical changes. To determine the relation between MA and structural gray matter abnormalities, we studied a unique sample of 20 patients with frequent side-locked MA, i.e. visual aura consistently occurring in the same hemifield. Methods: We applied a highly sensitive within-patient design to assess anatomical differences with both voxel-based morphometry and surface-based morphometry on a whole-hemisphere level and for specific anatomical regions of interest. Within-subject comparisons were made with regard to aura symptoms (N = 20 vs 20) and with regard to headache (N = 13 vs 13). Results: We found no differences in gray matter structure with regard to aura symptoms in MA patients. Comparing the typical migraine headache side of the patients to the contralateral side revealed a difference in cortical thickness in the inferior frontal gyrus (mean difference 0.12 mm, p = 0.036). Conclusion: MA per se is associated with abnormal function but not with lateralized abnormalities of gray matter structure. Alteration of the inferior frontal cortex suggests structural reorganization of pain inhibitory circuits in response to the repeated intense nociceptive input due to the headache attacks.

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

4.4
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