Erik H Middlebrooks1, Ronald G Quisling2, Michael A King3,4, Paul R Carney5, Steven Roper6, Luis M Colon-Perez7,8, Thomas H Mareci7. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 619 19th St. S., JT N409, Birmingham, AL, 35249, USA. ehmiddlebrooks@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 3. Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 4. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Gainesville, FL, USA. 5. Department of Neurology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 6. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 7. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 8. Department of Psychiatry, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The hippocampus has a critical role in many common disease processes. Currently, routine 3 Tesla structural MRI is a mainstay of clinical diagnosis. The goal of our study is to evaluate the normal variability in size and/or conspicuity of the hippocampal subcomponents in routine clinical 3 Tesla high-resolution T2-weighted images to provide a basis for better defining pathological derangements. Additionally, we utilize diffusion data acquired from a 17.6 Tesla MRI of the hippocampus as a benchmark to better illustrate these subcomponents. METHODS: The hippocampus was retrospectively assessed on 104 clinically normal patients undergoing coronal T2-weighted imaging. The conspicuity of the majority of hippocampal subcomponents was assessed in each portion of the hippocampus. Additionally, easily applicable cross-sectional measurements and signal intensities were obtained to evaluate the range of normal, as well as inter- and intra-subject variability. RESULTS: The normal range of cross-sectional measurements of the hippocampal subcomponents was calculated. There was minimal side-to-side variability in cross-sectional measurements of hippocampal subcomponents (< 5%) with the exception of the subiculum (R>L by 8.3%) and the CA4/DG (R>L by 5.8%). The internal architecture showed high variability in visibility of subcomponents between different segments of the hippocampus. CONCLUSIONS: Confident clinical assessment of the hippocampus requires a thorough knowledge of hippocampal size and signal, but also the internal architecture expected to be seen. The data provided in this study will provide the reader with vital information necessary for distinguishing a normal from abnormal exam.
PURPOSE: The hippocampus has a critical role in many common disease processes. Currently, routine 3 Tesla structural MRI is a mainstay of clinical diagnosis. The goal of our study is to evaluate the normal variability in size and/or conspicuity of the hippocampal subcomponents in routine clinical 3 Tesla high-resolution T2-weighted images to provide a basis for better defining pathological derangements. Additionally, we utilize diffusion data acquired from a 17.6 Tesla MRI of the hippocampus as a benchmark to better illustrate these subcomponents. METHODS: The hippocampus was retrospectively assessed on 104 clinically normal patients undergoing coronal T2-weighted imaging. The conspicuity of the majority of hippocampal subcomponents was assessed in each portion of the hippocampus. Additionally, easily applicable cross-sectional measurements and signal intensities were obtained to evaluate the range of normal, as well as inter- and intra-subject variability. RESULTS: The normal range of cross-sectional measurements of the hippocampal subcomponents was calculated. There was minimal side-to-side variability in cross-sectional measurements of hippocampal subcomponents (< 5%) with the exception of the subiculum (R>L by 8.3%) and the CA4/DG (R>L by 5.8%). The internal architecture showed high variability in visibility of subcomponents between different segments of the hippocampus. CONCLUSIONS: Confident clinical assessment of the hippocampus requires a thorough knowledge of hippocampal size and signal, but also the internal architecture expected to be seen. The data provided in this study will provide the reader with vital information necessary for distinguishing a normal from abnormal exam.
Authors: Kimmo J Hatanpaa; Jack M Raisanen; Emily Herndon; Dennis K Burns; Chan Foong; Amyn A Habib; Charles L White Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: Justin C Sanchez; Thomas H Mareci; Wendy M Norman; Jose C Principe; William L Ditto; Paul R Carney Journal: Exp Neurol Date: 2006-01-04 Impact factor: 5.330
Authors: Ramón Palacios Bote; Lidia Blázquez-Llorca; M Angeles Fernández-Gil; Lidia Alonso-Nanclares; Alberto Muñoz; Javier De Felipe Journal: Semin Ultrasound CT MR Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 1.875
Authors: Asla Pitkänen; Jari Nissinen; Jaak Nairismägi; Katarzyna Lukasiuk; Olli H J Gröhn; Riitta Miettinen; Risto Kauppinen Journal: Prog Brain Res Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.453
Authors: Paul A Yushkevich; Brian B Avants; John Pluta; Sandhitsu Das; David Minkoff; Dawn Mechanic-Hamilton; Simon Glynn; Stephen Pickup; Weixia Liu; James C Gee; Murray Grossman; John A Detre Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2008-09-18 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Bradley P Thomas; E Brian Welch; Blake D Niederhauser; William O Whetsell; Adam W Anderson; John C Gore; Malcolm J Avison; Jeffrey L Creasy Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Luis M Colon-Perez; Michael King; Mansi Parekh; Angelique Boutzoukas; Eduardo Carmona; Michelle Couret; Rosemary Klassen; Thomas H Mareci; Paul R Carney Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2015-08-01 Impact factor: 4.881