Yohei Morishita1, Shunji Mugikura2, Naoko Mori1, Hajime Tamura1, Shiho Sato1, Toshiaki Akashi1, Kazutaka Jin3, Nobukazu Nakasato3, Kei Takase1. 1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medicine, Tohoku University, 1-1 Seiryo-machi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980-8574, Japan. 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medicine, Tohoku University, 1-1 Seiryo-machi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980-8574, Japan. mugi@rad.med.tohoku.ac.jp. 3. Department of Epileptology, Graduate School of Medicine, Tohoku University, 1-1 Seiryo-machi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Conventional volumetric analysis could not detect ipsilateral atrophy of the mammillary body in patients with unilateral hippocampal sclerosis. By using thin-slice-reconstructed volumetric analysis, we investigated whether the mammillary body volume is smaller on the hippocampal sclerosis side than in healthy subjects or the non-hippocampal sclerosis side. METHODS: This retrospective study included 45 patients with unilateral hippocampal sclerosis and 30 healthy subjects. Three-dimensional T1WI of 1 mm thicknesses were oversampled to a thickness of 0.2 mm (thin-slice-reconstructed images), and the mammillary bodies were segmented manually to determine mammillary body volume on each side. Mammillary body volumes on the hippocampal sclerosis side were compared with those in healthy subjects or the non-hippocampal sclerosis side. RESULTS: In patients with right hippocampal sclerosis, right mammillary body volume was both significantly smaller than that in healthy subjects (30.3 ± 10.3 vs. 43.3 ± 8.07 mm3, P < 0.001) and significantly smaller than the left mammillary body volume in each patient (30.3 ± 10.3 vs. 41.4 ± 10.1 mm3, P < 0.001). Similarly, in patients with left hippocampal sclerosis, left mammillary body volume was both significantly smaller than that in healthy subjects (37.7 ± 11.2 vs. 47.0 ± 8.65 mm3, P < 0.001) and significantly smaller than right mammillary body volume in each patient (37.7 ± 11.2 vs. 42.5 ± 7.78 mm3, P = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, thin-slice-reconstructed volumetric analysis showed that, in patients with unilateral hippocampal sclerosis, mammillary body volume on the hippocampal sclerosis side is smaller than that in healthy subjects and the non-hippocampal sclerosis side.
PURPOSE: Conventional volumetric analysis could not detect ipsilateral atrophy of the mammillary body in patients with unilateral hippocampal sclerosis. By using thin-slice-reconstructed volumetric analysis, we investigated whether the mammillary body volume is smaller on the hippocampal sclerosis side than in healthy subjects or the non-hippocampal sclerosis side. METHODS: This retrospective study included 45 patients with unilateral hippocampal sclerosis and 30 healthy subjects. Three-dimensional T1WI of 1 mm thicknesses were oversampled to a thickness of 0.2 mm (thin-slice-reconstructed images), and the mammillary bodies were segmented manually to determine mammillary body volume on each side. Mammillary body volumes on the hippocampal sclerosis side were compared with those in healthy subjects or the non-hippocampal sclerosis side. RESULTS: In patients with right hippocampal sclerosis, right mammillary body volume was both significantly smaller than that in healthy subjects (30.3 ± 10.3 vs. 43.3 ± 8.07 mm3, P < 0.001) and significantly smaller than the left mammillary body volume in each patient (30.3 ± 10.3 vs. 41.4 ± 10.1 mm3, P < 0.001). Similarly, in patients with left hippocampal sclerosis, left mammillary body volume was both significantly smaller than that in healthy subjects (37.7 ± 11.2 vs. 47.0 ± 8.65 mm3, P < 0.001) and significantly smaller than right mammillary body volume in each patient (37.7 ± 11.2 vs. 42.5 ± 7.78 mm3, P = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, thin-slice-reconstructed volumetric analysis showed that, in patients with unilateral hippocampal sclerosis, mammillary body volume on the hippocampal sclerosis side is smaller than that in healthy subjects and the non-hippocampal sclerosis side.
Authors: Horst Urbach; Guido Siebenhaar; Roy Koenig; Joachim von Oertzen; Jasmin Scorzin; Martin Kurthen; Hans H Schild Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: H K Wolf; M G Campos; J Zentner; A Hufnagel; J Schramm; C E Elger; O D Wiestler Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 1993-09 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: Rajesh Kumar; Bramley V X Birrer; Paul M Macey; Mary A Woo; Rakesh K Gupta; Frisca L Yan-Go; Ronald M Harper Journal: Neurosci Lett Date: 2008-04-25 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Francisco A Perez; Clinton Elfers; Jack A Yanovski; Ashley H Shoemaker; M Jennifer Abuzzahab; Christian L Roth Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 6.408