4.6 Article

Bilateral volume reduction in posterior hippocampus in psychosis of epilepsy

期刊

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2018-319396

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Postgraduate Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Psychosis of epilepsy (POE) occurs more frequently in temporal lobe epilepsy, raising the question as to whether abnormalities of the hippocampus are aetiologically important. Despite decades of investigation, it is unclear whether hippocampal volume is reduced in POE, perhaps due to small sample sizes and methodological limitations of past research. Methods In this study, we examined the volume of the total hippocampus, and the hippocampal head, body and tail, in a large cohort of patients with POE and patients with epilepsy without psychosis (EC). One hundred adults participated: 50 with POE and 50 EC. Total and subregional hippocampal volumes were manually traced and compared between (1) POE and EC; (2) POE with temporal lobe epilepsy, extratemporal lobe epilepsy and generalised epilepsy; and (3) patients with POE with postictal psychosis (PIP) and interictal psychosis (IP). Results Compared with EC the POE group had smaller total left hippocampus volume (13.5% decrease, p<0.001), and smaller left hippocampal body (13.3% decrease, p=0.002), and left (41.5% decrease, p<0.001) and right (36.4% decrease, p<0.001) hippocampal tail volumes. Hippocampal head volumes did not differ between groups. Conclusion Posterior hippocampal volumes are bilaterally reduced in POE. Volume loss was observed on a posteroanterior gradient, with severe decreases in the tail and moderate volume decreases in the body, with no difference in the hippocampal head. Posterior hippocampal atrophy is evident to a similar degree in PIP and IP. Our findings converge with those reported for the paradigmatic psychotic disorder, schizophrenia, and suggest that posterior hippocampal atrophy may serve as a biomarker of the risk for psychosis, including in patients with epilepsy.

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

4.6
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