BACKGROUND: Decompressive craniectomy in malignant middle cerebral artery infarction (MMCAI) reduces mortality. Whether speech-dominant side infarction results in less favorable outcome is unclear. This study compared functional outcome, quality of life, and mental health among patients with speech-dominant and non-dominant side infarction. METHODS: All patients undergoing decompressive craniectomy for MMCAI were included. Demographics, side of infarction, and speech-dominant hemisphere were recorded. Outcome at follow-up was assessed by global functioning (modified Rankin Scale score), neurological impairment (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score), dependency (Barthel Index), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale), and quality of life (Short Form-36). RESULTS: Twenty-nine out of 45 patients (mean age ± SD, 48.1 ± 11.6 years; 58 % male) were alive at follow-up, and 26 were eligible for analysis [follow-up, median (interquartile range): 66 months (32-93)]. The speech-dominant hemisphere was affected in 13 patients. Outcome for patients with speech-dominant and non-dominant side MMCAI was similar regarding neurological impairment (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, mean ± SD: 10.3 ± 7.0 vs. 8.9 ± 2.7, respectively; p = 0.51), global functioning [modified Rankin Scale score, median (IQR): 3.0 [2-4] vs. 4.0 [3-4]; p = 0.34], dependence (Barthel Index, mean ± SD: 16.2 ± 5.0 vs. 13.1 ± 4.8; p = 0.12), and anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale, mean ± SD: anxiety, 5.0 ± 4.5 vs. 7.3 ± 5.8; p = 0.30; depression, 5.0 ± 5.2 vs. 5.9 ± 3.9; p = 0.62). The mean quality of life scores (Short Form-36) were not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistical or clinical difference in functional outcome and quality of life in patients with speech-dominant compared to non-dominant side infarction. The side affected should not influence suitability for decompressive craniectomy.
BACKGROUND: Decompressive craniectomy in malignant middle cerebral artery infarction (MMCAI) reduces mortality. Whether speech-dominant side infarction results in less favorable outcome is unclear. This study compared functional outcome, quality of life, and mental health among patients with speech-dominant and non-dominant side infarction. METHODS: All patients undergoing decompressive craniectomy for MMCAI were included. Demographics, side of infarction, and speech-dominant hemisphere were recorded. Outcome at follow-up was assessed by global functioning (modified Rankin Scale score), neurological impairment (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score), dependency (Barthel Index), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale), and quality of life (Short Form-36). RESULTS: Twenty-nine out of 45 patients (mean age ± SD, 48.1 ± 11.6 years; 58 % male) were alive at follow-up, and 26 were eligible for analysis [follow-up, median (interquartile range): 66 months (32-93)]. The speech-dominant hemisphere was affected in 13 patients. Outcome for patients with speech-dominant and non-dominant side MMCAI was similar regarding neurological impairment (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, mean ± SD: 10.3 ± 7.0 vs. 8.9 ± 2.7, respectively; p = 0.51), global functioning [modified Rankin Scale score, median (IQR): 3.0 [2-4] vs. 4.0 [3-4]; p = 0.34], dependence (Barthel Index, mean ± SD: 16.2 ± 5.0 vs. 13.1 ± 4.8; p = 0.12), and anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale, mean ± SD: anxiety, 5.0 ± 4.5 vs. 7.3 ± 5.8; p = 0.30; depression, 5.0 ± 5.2 vs. 5.9 ± 3.9; p = 0.62). The mean quality of life scores (Short Form-36) were not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistical or clinical difference in functional outcome and quality of life in patients with speech-dominant compared to non-dominant side infarction. The side affected should not influence suitability for decompressive craniectomy.
Authors: Georg Leonhardt; Hans Wilhelm; Arnd Doerfler; Christiane E Ehrenfeld; Beate Schoch; Friedhelm Rauhut; Andreas Hufnagel; Hans Christoph Diener Journal: J Neurol Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Dennis Chan; Valerie Anderson; Yolande Pijnenburg; Jennifer Whitwell; Jo Barnes; Rachael Scahill; John M Stevens; Frederik Barkhof; Philip Scheltens; Martin N Rossor; Nick C Fox Journal: Brain Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: J B Delashaw; W C Broaddus; N F Kassell; E C Haley; G A Pendleton; D G Vollmer; W W Maggio; M S Grady Journal: Stroke Date: 1990-06 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Eric Jüttler; Stefan Schwab; Peter Schmiedek; Andreas Unterberg; Michael Hennerici; Johannes Woitzik; Steffen Witte; Ekkehart Jenetzky; Werner Hacke Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-08-09 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Hermann Neugebauer; Matthias Schnabl; Dorothée Lulé; Peter U Heuschmann; Eric Jüttler Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Taco Goedemans; Dagmar Verbaan; Bert A Coert; Bertjan Kerklaan; René van den Berg; Jonathan M Coutinho; Tessa van Middelaar; Paul J Nederkoorn; W Peter Vandertop; Pepijn van den Munckhof Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 4.654