| Literature DB >> 28702354 |
Olga Laporta-Hoyos1, Kerstin Pannek2, Júlia Ballester-Plané1, Lee B Reid3, Élida Vázquez4, Ignacio Delgado4, Leire Zubiaurre-Elorza5, Alfons Macaya6, Pilar Póo7, Mar Meléndez-Plumed8, Carme Junqué9, Roslyn Boyd10, Roser Pueyo11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dyskinetic cerebral palsy (CP) is one of the most disabling motor types of CP and has been classically associated with injury to the basal ganglia and thalamus. Although cognitive dysfunction is common in CP, there is a paucity of published quantitative analyses investigating the relationship between white matter (WM) microstructure and cognition in this CP type. AIMS: This study aims (1) to compare brain WM microstructure between people with dyskinetic CP and healthy controls, (2) to identify brain regions where WM microstructure is related to intelligence and (3) to identify brain regions where WM microstructure is related to executive function in people with dyskinetic CP and (4) to identify brain regions where the correlations are different between controls and people with CP in IQ and executive functions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-three participants with dyskinetic CP (mean ± SD age: 24.42 ± 12.61, 15 female) were age and sex matched with 33 controls. Participants underwent a comprehensive neuropsychological battery to assess intelligence quotient (IQ) and four executive function domains (attentional control, cognitive flexibility, goal setting and information processing). Diffusion weighted MRI scans were acquired at 3T. Voxel-based whole brain groupwise analyses were used to compare fractional anisotropy (FA) and of the CP group to the matched controls using a general lineal model. Further general linear models were used to identify regions where white matter FA correlated with IQ and each of the executive function domains.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28702354 PMCID: PMC5496484 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2017.05.005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Demographics and clinical data of subjects with dyskinetic cerebral palsy and healthy age and sex matched controls.
| CP group | Control group | |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | 15/18 | 15/18 |
| Age | 24.42 (12.61)/6–59 | 24.42 (12.44)/7–59 |
| Gestational age | 2/4/27 | 0/0/33 |
| Epilepsy status | 23/8/2 | 33/0/0 |
| Aetiology, n | ||
| HIE | 14 | |
| Intra-cranial haemorrhage/infarction/hydrocephalus | 3 | |
| Infection | 1 | |
| Kernicterus | 1 | |
| Unclassifiable | 14 | |
| Gross motor function (GMFCS) (n) | I (12) | – |
| Fine motor function (MACS) (n) | I (5) | – |
| Communication (CFCS) (n) | I (14) | – |
| Motor distribution (tetraplegia/hemiplegia/monoplegia) | 28/4/1 | – |
CFCS: Communication function classification system; CP: cerebral palsy; GMFCS: Gross motor function classification system; HIE: hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy; MACS: Manual ability classification system; SD: standard deviation.
Descriptive statistics of neuropsychological performance of subjects with dyskinetic cerebral palsy and age and sex matched healthy controls.
| n | Score | CP group | Control group | Differences | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Range | Mean (SD) or Median (IQR) | Range | Mean (SD) or Median (IQR) | |||||
| IQ | Intelligence quotient† | 33 | Raw | 12–36 | 29–36 | ⁎ < 0.001; U = 217 | ||
| IQ | 33–127 | 95–128 | ⁎ < 0.001; U = 257 | |||||
| EF | Attentional control† | 31a | Raw | 244–316 | 266–312 | NS. U = 462.50 | ||
| Cognitive flexibility†,+ | 31a | Raw | 4–35 | 2–23 | NS. U = − 401 | |||
| z | − 2.70–3 | − | − 2.10–3 | − | NS. U = 451.50 | |||
| Goal setting | 30a | Raw | 3–12 | 7.93 (2.35) | 6–12 | 9.40 (1.57) | ⁎0.006 | |
| z | − 2.52–1.91 | 0.02 (1.11) | − 1.04–1.91 | 0.70 (0.76) | 0.007 | |||
| Information processing | 26b | Raw | 4–51 | 28.42 (12.60) | 11–68 | 40.04 (13.65) | ⁎0.002 | |
CP: cerebral palsy; EF: executive function; IQ: intelligence quotient; IQR: interquartile range; NS: no significant; SD: standard deviation. Reasons for missing data: aAnarthria accompanied by very severe motor impairments that preclude to use an appropriate response system for the test used; bAnarthria or severe dysarthria.
⁎Bonferroni correction for multiple-comparison was applied and significance is at level set of 0.006.
†Data in one or both groups is not normally distributed, thus, non-parametric test is applied and median (IQR) is indicated in italic.
+Higher scores indicate worse performance.
Fig. 1Regions where fractional anisotropy was significantly lower in a sample of 33 subjects with dyskinetic cerebral palsy compared with 33 age and sex matched healthy controls. Results are shown at p < 0.05 corrected for multiple comparisons and overlaid on the group mean fractional anisotropy. RH: right hemisphere; LH: left hemisphere.
Fig. 2Regions where fractional anisotropy correlated A) positively with intelligence quotient (Raven's coloured progressive matrices) B) negatively with cognitive flexibility (Wisconsin card sorting test). Results are shown at p < 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons, controlled for age and sex and overlaid on the group mean fractional anisotropy image. RH: right hemisphere; LH: left hemisphere.
Fig. 3Scatterplot between IQ (intelligence quotient) (y-axis; raw score) and mean FA (fractional anisotropy) (x-axis) in significant clusters (p < 0.05). Clusters sorted by size (largest first) and labelled by the same numbers as Table 3.
Regions showing a positive correlation between fractional anisotropy and intelligence quotient in the cerebral palsy group.
| Cluster number | Cluster size (mm3) | Mean FA (SD) (CP/controls) | Anatomical regions | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JHU white matter atlas | Harvard-Oxford cortical structural atlas | ||||
| 1 | 143,218 | 0.393 (0.099)/ | MS | Genu, | |
| B | |||||
| LH | |||||
| RH | Tapetum | Inferior frontal gyrus (pars triangularis) | |||
| 2 | 3359 | 0.432 (0.087)/ | LH | Posterior thalamic radiation (include optic radiation) | Intracalcarine cortex |
| 3 | 1184 | 0.310 (0.036)/ | B | ||
| 4 | 890 | 0.314 (0.042)/ | LH | ||
| 5 | 147 | 0.349 (0.069)/ | LH | ||
| 6 | 54 | 0.272 (0.024)/ | LH | Lateral occipital cortex (superior division) | |
B: bilateral; CP: cerebral palsy; FA: fractional anisotropy; JHU: John Hopkins University; LH: left hemisphere; MS: medial structure; RH: right hemisphere; SD: standard deviation. Discrepancies between fractional anisotropy and mean diffusivity results are indicated as follows. Bold indicates regions that are significant with both fractional anisotropy and mean diffusivity. Italics indicate regions that only show the same result between fractional anisotropy and mean diffusivity in one hemisphere.
Fig. 4Scatterplot between CF (cognitive flexibility) (y-axis; raw score) and mean FA (fractional anisotropy) (x-axis) in significant clusters (p < 0.05). Clusters sorted by size (largest first) and labelled by the same numbers as Table 4.
Regions showing a negative correlation between fractional anisotropy and cognitive flexibility in the cerebral palsy group.
| Cluster number | Cluster size (mm3) | Mean FA (SD) (CP/controls) | Anatomical regions | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JHU white matter atlas | Harvard-Oxford cortical structural atlas | ||||
| 1 | 20,951 | 0.450 (0.104)/ | MS | Body and | |
| B | |||||
| LH | Tapetum | ||||
| 2 | 245 | 0.379 (0.070)/ | RH | ||
| 3 | 69 | 0.379 (0.070)/ | RH | ||
| 4 | 54 | 0.453 (0.080)/ | RH | Cingulate gyrus (anterior division) | |
B: bilateral; CP: cerebral palsy; FA: fractional anisotropy; JHU: John Hopkins University; LH: left hemisphere; MS: medial structure; RH: right hemisphere; SD: standard deviation. Discrepancies between fractional anisotropy and mean diffusivity results are indicated as follows. Bold indicates regions that are significant with both fractional anisotropy and mean diffusivity. Italics indicate regions that only show the same result between fractional anisotropy and mean diffusivity in one hemisphere.