SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Early re-emerging tremor after MRgFUS thalamotomy: case-control analysis of procedural and imaging features.

Front Neurol · 2024-06-06

DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1356613PMID: 38903176

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

PurposeThis study aimed to identify possible prognostic factors determining early tremor relapse after Magnetic Resonance guided Focused Ultrasound Surgery (MRgFUS) thalamotomy in patients with essential tremor (ET) and Parkinson's disease (PD).MethodsNine patients (six ET and three PD) who underwent Vim MRgFUS thalamotomy in a single institution and developed early re-emergent tremor were analyzed. A control group of patients matched pairwise for sex, pathology, age, disease duration, and skull density ratio (SDR) was selected to compare the technical-procedural data and MR imaging evidence. MR imaging findings compared between groups included lesion shape and volume in multiparametric sequences, as well as Fractiona Anisotropy (FA) and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) values derived from Diffusion Tensor Imaging Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DTI) and Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) sequences.ResultsWe did not find statistically significant differences in gender and age between the two groups. Technical and procedural parameters were also similar in both treatment groups. In MRI analysis, we found lesions of similar size but with greater caudal extension in the control group with stable outcomes compared to patients with tremor relapse.ConclusionIn our analysis of early recurrences after thalamotomy with focused ultrasound, there were neither technical and procedural differences nor prognostic factors related to lesion size or ablation temperatures. Greater caudal extension of the lesion in patients without recurrence might suggest the importance of spatial consolidation during treatment.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.