OBJECTIVES: Many diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) studies have reported an association between cingulum injury and cognition in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) using DTI parameters. In this study, we attempted to investigate the relation between cingulum injury and cognition in chronic patients with TBI, using the integrity of the cingulum as well as DTI parameters. METHOD: Thirty five consecutive chronic patients with TBI were recruited. The intelligence quotient (IQ) of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale and Memory Assessment Scale (MAS) was used for assessment of cognition. The patients were classified into three groups, according to continuity to the lower portion of the genu of the corpus callosum: type A-both sides of the cingulum showed intact continuity, type B-either cingulum showed a discontinuation, and, type C-both cingulums showed discontinuation. We measured the fractional anisotropy (FA), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and voxel number of both cingulums. RESULTS: The IQ and MAS scores of type A and B were significantly higher than those of type C, respectively (p < 0.05), however, we did not observe a significant difference between type A and type B (p > 0.05). A positive correlation was observed between the FA value of the cingulum, and IQ and MAS, respectively (IQ r = 0.373, p < 0.05, MAS r = 0.357, p < 0.05), and between the voxel number and MAS (r = 0.500, p < 0.05). By contrast, we observed a negative correlation between the ADC value and IQ (r = -0.353, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In terms of integrity to the basal forebrain and DTI parameters of the injured cingulum, DTI findings showed a close association with whole cognition and memory in chronic patients with TBI.
OBJECTIVES: Many diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) studies have reported an association between cingulum injury and cognition in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) using DTI parameters. In this study, we attempted to investigate the relation between cingulum injury and cognition in chronic patients with TBI, using the integrity of the cingulum as well as DTI parameters. METHOD: Thirty five consecutive chronic patients with TBI were recruited. The intelligence quotient (IQ) of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale and Memory Assessment Scale (MAS) was used for assessment of cognition. The patients were classified into three groups, according to continuity to the lower portion of the genu of the corpus callosum: type A-both sides of the cingulum showed intact continuity, type B-either cingulum showed a discontinuation, and, type C-both cingulums showed discontinuation. We measured the fractional anisotropy (FA), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and voxel number of both cingulums. RESULTS: The IQ and MAS scores of type A and B were significantly higher than those of type C, respectively (p < 0.05), however, we did not observe a significant difference between type A and type B (p > 0.05). A positive correlation was observed between the FA value of the cingulum, and IQ and MAS, respectively (IQ r = 0.373, p < 0.05, MAS r = 0.357, p < 0.05), and between the voxel number and MAS (r = 0.500, p < 0.05). By contrast, we observed a negative correlation between the ADC value and IQ (r = -0.353, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In terms of integrity to the basal forebrain and DTI parameters of the injured cingulum, DTI findings showed a close association with whole cognition and memory in chronic patients with TBI.
Authors: Hannah M Lindsey; Sanam J Lalani; Jonathan Mietchen; Shawn D Gale; Elisabeth A Wilde; Jessica Faber; Marianne C MacLeod; Jill V Hunter; Zili D Chu; Mary E Aitken; Linda Ewing-Cobbs; Harvey S Levin Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 3.978
Authors: I Coppieters; R De Pauw; K Caeyenberghs; D Lenoir; K DeBlaere; E Genbrugge; M Meeus; B Cagnie Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Laurie M Baker; David H Laidlaw; Ryan Cabeen; Erbil Akbudak; Thomas E Conturo; Stephen Correia; David F Tate; Jodi M Heaps-Woodruff; Matthew R Brier; Jacob Bolzenius; Lauren E Salminen; Elizabeth M Lane; Amanda R McMichael; Robert H Paul Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 3.978
Authors: M Wintermark; L Coombs; T J Druzgal; A S Field; C G Filippi; R Hicks; R Horton; Y W Lui; M Law; P Mukherjee; A Norbash; G Riedy; P C Sanelli; J R Stone; G Sze; M Tilkin; C T Whitlow; E A Wilde; G York; J M Provenzale Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-02-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Timo Kurki; Leena Himanen; Elina Vuorinen; Anna Myllyniemi; Anna-Riitta Saarenketo; Tommi Kauko; Nina Brandstack; Olli Tenovuo Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2014-07-31 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Jeong-Hee Yang; Han Do Lee; So Young Kwak; Ki Hyun Byun; Sung Ho Park; Dongseok Yang Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Hyeok Gyu Kwon; Byung Yeon Choi; Seong Ho Kim; Chul Hoon Chang; Young Jin Jung; Han Do Lee; Sung Ho Jang Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2014-05-30 Impact factor: 3.169