4.5 Article

The infarct location predicts progressive motor deficits in patients with acute lacunar infarction in the lenticulostriate artery territory

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 293, 期 1-2, 页码 87-91

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2010.02.027

关键词

Lacunar infarction; Progressive motor deficit; Lenticulostriate artery; Diffusion weighted imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose: Patients with acute lacunar infarction in the lenticulostriate artery (LSA) territory often show progression of motor deficits (PMD) after admission. The purpose of our study is to identify predictors for PMD using the findings of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) on admission. Methods: From January 2005 to December 2008, we studied 60 consecutive patients with acute lacunar infarction in the LSA territory within 24 h after onset. To identify predictors for PMD, clinical characteristics including vascular risk factors and DWI findings were evaluated. DWI findings included the size and location of the infarcts and the slice numbers of infarcts visible on DWI. For the location, posterior type was defined as an infarct located in the posterior part of corona radiata on the second slice from the top among slices including corona radiata. Results: Twenty-six patients (43%) showed PMD. In univariate analysis, age >= 75 (P=0.03), female sex (P=0.04), infarct slice number >= 3 (P=0.04), and posterior type infarct (P<0.001) were more frequent in the PMD group than in the no PMD group. In multivariate analysis, posterior type infarct was the only independent predictor among DWI findings for PMD (odds ratio, 14.83; 95% confidence interval, 3.54-87.21, P<0.001). Conclusions: Posterior type infarct was the independent predictor in DWI findings for PMD in patients with lacunar infarction in the LSA territory. We postulate that the posterior type infarct may affect the corticospinal tract to a greater degree and cause PMD. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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