| Literature DB >> 33335773 |
Sung Ho Jang1, Seong Ho Kim2, You Sung Seo1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We investigated injuries of the optic radiations (ORs) in patients with mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) by using diffusion tensor tractography (DTT).Entities:
Keywords: diffusion tensor imaging; diffusion tensor tractography; head trauma; mild traumatic brain injury; optic radiation; visual evoked potential
Year: 2020 PMID: 33335773 PMCID: PMC7718621 DOI: 10.1515/tnsci-2020-0108
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Neurosci ISSN: 2081-6936 Impact factor: 1.757
Figure 1(a) T 2-weighted MR images show no abnormal lesion. (b) DTT for the injured OR (red arrow) and the VEP (latency: 151 m/s) of a patient (31-year-old male). (c) DTT of the OR and the VEP (latency: 100 m/s) of a normal subject (32 year old male).
Visual problems of individual patients
| No. | Age | Sex | Visual defect | Poor vision | Blurred vision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 45 | F | ○ | ○ | |
| 2 | 23 | F | ○ | ||
| 3 | 56 | F | ○ | ||
| 4 | 52 | F | ○ | ○ | |
| 5 | 13 | F | ○ | ○ | |
| 6 | 50 | F | ○ | ○ | |
| 7 | 60 | F | ○ | ○ | |
| 8 | 40 | F | ○ | ||
| 9 | 35 | F | ○ | ○ | |
| 10 | 22 | F | ○ | ○ | |
| 11 | 56 | F | ○ | ○ | |
| 12 | 72 | F | ○ | ||
| 13 | 65 | F | ○ | ○ | |
| 14 | 53 | M | ○ | ○ | |
| 15 | 42 | M | ○ | ○ | |
| 16 | 18 | M | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| 17 | 62 | F | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| 18 | 30 | M | ○ | ○ | |
| 19 | 46 | M | ○ | ○ | |
| 20 | 50 | F | ○ | ○ | |
| 21 | 49 | F | ○ | ○ | |
| 22 | 61 | F | ○ | ||
| 23 | 56 | F | ○ | ○ | |
| 24 | 58 | F | ○ | ○ | |
| 25 | 33 | F | ○ | ||
| 26 | 39 | M | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| 27 | 41 | M | ○ | ○ | |
| 28 | 56 | M | ○ | ○ | |
| 29 | 58 | M | ○ | ○ | |
| 30 | 63 | F | ○ | ○ | |
| 31 | 35 | F | ○ | ○ | |
| 32 | 65 | F | ○ | ○ | |
| 33 | 38 | F | ○ | ○ | |
| 34 | 38 | M | ○ | ||
| 35 | 19 | M | ○ | ||
| 36 | 25 | F | ○ | ||
| 37 | 35 | F | ○ | ||
| 38 | 59 | F | ○ | ○ | |
| 39 | 21 | M | ○ | ○ | |
| 40 | 31 | M | ○ | ||
| 41 | 58 | M | ○ | ○ | |
| 42 | 58 | F | ○ | ○ | |
| 43 | 26 | M | ○ | ||
| 44 | 63 | F | ○ | ○ | |
| 45 | 59 | F | ○ | ○ | |
| 46 | 61 | F | ○ | ||
| 47 | 58 | M | ○ | ○ | |
| 48 | 27 | M | ○ | ○ | |
| 49 | 21 | M | ○ | ○ | |
| 50 | 29 | F | ○ | ○ | ○ |
| 51 | 62 | M | ○ | ||
| 52 | 65 | M | ○ |
Comparison of DTT parameters between the patient and control groups
| Patient group | Control group |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| FA | 0.47 (±0.11) | 0.50 (±0.05) | 0.042 |
| ADC | 0.64 (±0.18) | 0.60 (±0.04) | 0.602 |
| Fiber number | 544.55 (±347.44) | 1253.25 (±306.20) | 0.001* |
FA: fractional anisotropy, ADC: apparent diffusion coefficient, values represent patients: mean ± standard deviation (controls: mean ± standard deviation).
aSignificant difference between the patient and control groups, p < 0.05.
Correlation between DTT parameters and VEP latency
| FA | ADC | Fiber number | |
|---|---|---|---|
| VEP latency | 0.005 | 0.026 | −0.214 |
FA: fractional anisotropy, ADC: apparent diffusion coefficient, VEP: visual evoked potential.
aSignificant difference between DTT parameter and VEP latency, p < 0.05.