| Literature DB >> 23651913 |
Won Seok Chang1, Bong Soo Kim, Ji Eun Lee, Hyun Ho Jung, Kiwoong Kim, Hyuk Chan Kwon, Yong Ho Lee, Jin Woo Chang.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditionally, tinnitus accompanied by hemifacial spasm has been considered a type of hyperactive neurovascular compression syndrome that is similar to hemifacial spasm alone because of the anatomically close relationship between the facial nerve and cochlear nerve as well as the hyperactive clinical nature.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23651913 PMCID: PMC3655871 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2377-13-42
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Neurol ISSN: 1471-2377 Impact factor: 2.474
Figure 1A magnetic resonance image of a patient with tinnitus accompanied by HFS. Upper row: The source image from a three-dimensional time-of-flight image. Lower row: A three-dimensional Fourier transformation with constructive interference in the steady-state image. Arrow: The site of neurovascular compression of the facial and vestibulocochlear nerve complex by a branch from the posterior inferior cerebellar artery.
Patient demographic characteristics
| | Gender | Male | 6 | |
| | | Female | 23 | |
| | Age (years) | Mean (Range) | 48.9 (33–69) | |
| | Offending vessel | AICA | 15 | |
| | | PICA | 14 | |
| | Tinnitus | Yes | 8 | |
| | | No | 21 | |
| | Type of tinnitus | Low-pitch pulsatile | 6 | |
| High-pitch continuous | 2 |
Abbreviations: AICA, anterior inferior cerebellar artery; PICA, posterior inferior cerebellar artery.
Summary of results (N100m latency)
| | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | | | HFS side | 101.3 ± 14.3 | 0.198† |
| | | | Control side | 99.1 ± 10.0 | |
| | Tinnitus | yes | HFS side | 92.8 ± 7.9 | |
| | | | Control side | 97.0 ± 7.1 | |
| | | no | HFS side | 104.5 ± 15.0 | |
| | | | Control side | 100.0 ± 10.9 | |
| | Gender | Male | HFS side | 98.5 ± 9.0 | 0.546 |
| | | | Control side | 98.3 ± 7.4 | |
| | | Female | HFS side | 102.0 ± 15.5 | |
| | | | Control side | 99.1 ± 10.0 | |
| | Age (years) | ≥50 | HFS side | 104.5 ± 15.1 | 0.949 |
| | | | Control side | 100.0 ± 10.9 | |
| | | <50 | HFS side | 98.9 ± 7.9 | |
| | | | Control side | 97.0 ± 7.1 | |
| | Offender | AICA | HFS side | 95.7 ± 9.0 | 0.333 |
| | | | Control side | 97.3 ± 7.8 | |
| | | PICA | HFS side | 107.3 ± 16.7 | |
| Control side | 101.0 ± 11.8 |
† N100m latency of HFS side vs. N100m latency of control side, paired t-test.
‡ Comparison of N100m difference according to each factor, Mann–Whitney test.
* Latency of N100m on the HFS side − latency of N100m on the control side.
Abbreviations: AICA, anterior inferior cerebellar artery; PICA, posterior inferior cerebellar artery; S.D., standard deviation.
Summary of results (ECD strength)
| | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | | | HFS side | 27.5 ± 9.4 | 0.265† |
| | | | Control side | 24.8 ± 11.6 | |
| | Tinnitus | yes | HFS side | 30.5 ± 12.7 | |
| | | | Control side | 18.8 ± 5.1 | |
| | | no | HFS side | 26.4 ± 8.0 | |
| | | | Control side | 27.1 ± 12.6 | |
| | Gender | Male | HFS side | 27.6 ± 9.3 | 0.694‡ |
| | | | Control side | 25.6 ± 10.4 | |
| | | Female | HFS side | 27.5 ± 10.2 | |
| | | | Control side | 24.6 ± 12.1 | |
| | Age (years) | ≥50 | HFS side | 30.31 ± 1.0 | 0.234‡ |
| | | | Control side | 29.3 ± 12.4 | |
| | | <50 | HFS side | 24.6 ± 6.5 | |
| | | | Control side | 20.0 ± 9.6 | |
| | Offender | AICA | HFS side | 26.5 ± 10.5 | 0.201‡ |
| | | | Control side | 22.0 ± 12.4 | |
| | | PICA | HFS side | 28.7 ± 8.4 | |
| Control side | 27.9 ± 10.2 |
† ECD strength of HFS side vs. ECD strength of control side, paired t-test.
‡ Comparison of the ratio of ECD strength according to each factor, Mann–Whitney test.
* ECD strength of N100m on the HFS side/ECD strength of N100m on the control side.
Abbreviations: AICA, anterior inferior cerebellar artery; ECD, equivalent current dipole; PICA, posterior inferior cerebellar artery; S.D., standard deviation.
Figure 2A comparison of the difference in the N100m latency and the ratio of equivalent current dipole strength (ECDs) of N100m between the control side and HFS side.
Figure 3An example of the average dipoles after auditory stimulation (A and B). The ECDs of the N100m, and the N100m latency of a patient with tinnitus accompanied by left-side HFS are greater and faster after auditory stimulation on the HFS side (A). However, these findings were not observed in patients without tinnitus (B).