4.7 Article

Relationship between cortex and pulvinar abnormalities on diffusion-weighted imaging in status epilepticus

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 263, 期 1, 页码 127-132

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-015-7948-4

关键词

Status epilepticus; Diffusion-weighted imaging; Duration of status epilepticus; Cortico-pulvinar pathway; Anti-epileptic drugs; Todd's palsy

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K09344] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to analyze the pattern of magnetic resonance diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) findings in status epilepticus in terms of clinical characteristics. Participants comprised 106 patients with status epilepticus who were admitted to our hospital and underwent DWI. Forty-five patients (42.5 %) showed abnormal findings on DWI and were divided into two groups, comprising 26 patients (24.5 %) with cortex lesions alone and 19 patients (17.9 %) with cortex and pulvinar lesions in the same hemisphere. A long duration of status epilepticus (> 120 min) tended to be more prevalent among patients with cortex and pulvinar lesions (57.9 %) than among patients with cortex lesions alone (30.8 %) by univariate and multivariate analyses. Todd's palsy tended to be more frequent in patients with abnormalities on DWI (24/45, 53.3 %) than in patients with normal DWI (21/61, 34.4 %). Six of the 26 patients with cortex lesions alone (23.1 %) had taken anti-epileptic drugs before the attack compared to none of the 19 patients with both cortex and pulvinar lesions. The trend toward a longer duration of status epilepticus in patients with both cortex and pulvinar lesions favors a spreading pattern of seizure discharge from cortex to pulvinar via cortico-pulvinar pathways, and anti-epileptic drugs might, to some extent, prevent spreading of seizure discharge from cortex to pulvinar. In addition, existence of high-intensity areas on DWI at the onset of epilepsy may be a predictive factor for the occurrence of Todd's palsy.

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