| Literature DB >> 28567306 |
P F Felisaz1, G Maugeri1, V Busi1, R Vitale1, F Balducci1, S Gitto2, P Leporati3, A Pichiecchio4, M Baldi5, F Calliada1,6, L Chiovato3, S Bastianello4,7.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess with MRI morphometric ultrastructural changes in nerves affected by diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). We used an MR micro-neurography imaging protocol and a semiautomated technique of tissue segmentation to visualize and measure the volume of internal nerve components, such as the epineurium and nerve fascicles. The tibial nerves of 16 patients affected by DPN and of 15 healthy volunteers were imaged. Nerves volume (NV), fascicles volume (FV), fascicles to nerve ratio (FNR), and nerves cross-sectional areas (CSA) were obtained. In patients with DPN the NV was increased and the FNR was decreased, as a result of an increase of the epineurium (FNR in diabetic neuropathy 0,665; in controls 0,699, p = 0,040). CSA was increased in subjects with DPN (12,84 mm2 versus 10,22 mm2, p = 0,003). The FV was increased in patients with moderate to severe DPN. We have demonstrated structural changes occurring in nerves affected by DPN, which otherwise are assessable only with an invasive biopsy. MR micro-neurography appears to be suitable for the study of microscopic changes in tibial nerves of diabetic patients.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28567306 PMCID: PMC5439248 DOI: 10.1155/2017/2761818
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiol Res Pract ISSN: 2090-195X
Parameters of the MR sequences.
| Localizer | Fluid sensitive HR | Fat sensitive HR | T1-weighted HR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type | 3D SPGR | 3D SPGR IDEAL | 3D SPGR IDEAL | 2D FSE |
| TR (ms) | 5,9 | 16,9 | 16,9 | 650 |
| TE (ms) | Min | Min | Min | Min |
| Flip angle | 10 | 10 | 10 | 90 |
| FOV (cm) | 8 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Acquisition matrix | 128 × 128 | 512 × 420 | 512 × 420 | 512 × 416 |
| Number of slices | 128 | 20 | 20 | 11 |
| Slice thickness (mm) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Gap (mm) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| ETL | — | — | — | 5 |
| NEX | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| BW (KHz) | 15 | 35 | 35 | 31 |
| Fat sup. | Yes | No | No | No |
Figure 1(A) Ankle, axial plane. Sequence: 3D SPGR IDEAL-water image. (B) Neurovascular bundle with the tibial nerve. Sequence: TSE T1 weighted. The nerve fascicles appear dark over a brighter background, corresponding to the epineurial fat. (C) Sequence: 3D SPGR-water image. The fascicles appear bright over a dark background corresponding to the epineurium. The perineurium can be seen surrounding some of the fascicles (see Figure 2).
Figure 2(A) Tibial nerve right above the level of the tibial malleolus, axial plane. Sequence: 3D SPGR IDEAL-water image. Voxel size is about 120 × 140 × 2000 μm. (B) Diagram of the internal nerve aspect that is visualized. Arrowheads: two fascicles surrounded by the perineurium. Dark areas: epineurium. A: posterior tibial artery. V: posterior tibial veins.
Figure 3Tibial nerve with chronic degenerative changes (left (A, B)) compared with a volunteer (right (C, D)). The patient was in the group of the moderate/severe DPN and suffered from chronic pain and severe motor impairment. (A, C) Sequence: TSE T1. (B, D) Sequence: IDEAL-WATER. There is a visual increase of the interfascicular tissue (epineurium), while the fascicles appear reduced in number and area. Increase of fat and fibrous tissue within the epineurium is common in chronic stage of diabetic neuropathy.
Comparison of parameters between subjects with diabetic neuropathy and controls. Data is expressed in mean ± SEM. Bold characters are used to enhance statistical significance. DPN = diabetic peripheral neuropathy. NV = mean of the nerve volumes (for a length of 28 mm). FV = mean of the fascicles volumes (for a length of 28 mm). FNR = fascicles to nerve ratio. CSA = mean of the cross-sectional areas. There is statistical difference (p < 0,05) in NV, FNR, and CSA between subjects with diabetic neuropathy and controls.
| DPN | Controls |
| Confidence interval (95%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inferior | Superior | ||||
| NV (mm3) | 361.85 ± 26.3 | 286.87 ± 18.0 |
| −141.1 | −8.87 |
| FV (mm3) | 239.12 ± 16.8 | 198.4 ± 12.8 | 0.065 | −84.21 | 2.78 |
| FNR | 0.666 ± 0.011 | 0.699 ± 0.011 |
| 0.002 | 0.064 |
| CSA (mm2) | 12.84 ± 0.72 | 10.22 ± 0.45 |
| −4.374 | −0.854 |
Figure 4Data comparison graph for FNR in subjects with diabetic neuropathy (indicated with “diabetes”) and controls (indicated with “normal”). There is a significant difference between the two populations. For more details see Table 2.
Test between the control group and the two subgroups of diabetic neuropathy. All data are expressed in mean ± SEM. All patients included in the diabetic neuropathy group had abnormal nerve conduction studies. Subjects with a neuropathy disability score of less than 6 points were considered “mild neuropathy,” and subjects with 6 points or more were considered “moderate/severe neuropathy.” Bold characters are used to enhance statistical significance. N.S. = Nonsignificant.
| Nondiabetic | Mild neuropathy | Moderate/severe | A versus B | B versus C | A versus C | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (A) | (B) | (C) | ||||
| NV | 286.8 ± 18.0 | 326.7 ± 48.4 | 383.0 ± 30.6 | N.S. | N.S. |
|
| FV | 198.4 ± 12.8 | 218.7 ± 29.7 | 251.4 ± 20.3 | N.S. | N.S. |
|
| FNR | 0.699 ± 0.011 | 0.677 ± 0.018 | 0.659 ± 0.014 | N.S. | N.S. |
|
| CSA | 10.22 ± 0.45 | 12.62 ± 1.27 | 12.97 ± 0.91 |
| N.S. |
|