4.5 Article

Caudate dopaminergic denervation and visual hallucinations: Evidence from a 123I-FP-CIT SPECT study

期刊

PARKINSONISM & RELATED DISORDERS
卷 20, 期 7, 页码 761-765

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2014.04.006

关键词

Parkinson's disease; Visual hallucinations; SPECT; Caudate nucleus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The pathogenesis of visual hallucinations (VHs) in Parkinson's disease (PD) has been considered multifactorial. In the pathophysiology of VHs a combination of impaired visual processing and attention has been reported. Imaging studies evidenced a role of the primary visual system and visual association areas as well as a dysfunctional activation of frontal areas in the occurrence of VHs. Due to the functional connections between basal ganglia and frontal areas, a role of basal ganglia and of the fronto-striatal circuits in the pathogenesis of VHs may be postulated. Aim of this study is to unveil whether a presynaptic dopamine deficiency at baseline may predict the development of VHs. Methods: A group of 18 non demented PD patients with VHs was matched with 18 non demented PD patients without VHs as regards age of onset of disease, disease duration and severity and levodopa equivalent dose. We retrospectively analyzed the I-123-FP CIT SPECT performed on the two groups at the onset of their disease. The striatal uptake values in the two groups were examined, in order to evaluate nigrostriatal differences between the groups with different behavioral phenotype. Results: The group of patients with VHs had a significant reduction (p < 0.05) in right caudate uptake values at baseline when compared with patients without VHs. No significant differences were found between the groups regarding left caudate and putaminal uptake values. Conclusions: The frontal impairment reported in PD patients with VHs may be due to a right caudate dysfunction, as it is connected to the frontal brain areas via neuronal loops. (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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