AJR ARRS Member Benefits
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hutchins, L.
Right arrow Articles by Osborn, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hutchins, L.
Right arrow Articles by Osborn, A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 153, Issue 6, 1275-1282
Copyright © 1989 by American Roentgen Ray Society


Articles

The radiologic assessment of trigeminal neuropathy

LG Hutchins, HR Harnsberger, CW Hardin, WP Dillon, WR Smoker, and AG Osborn

Department of Radiology, University of Utah Medical Center, Salt Lake City 84132.

The clinical and radiologic records of 76 patients with trigeminal neuropathy and an abnormal imaging study (CT and/or MR) were analyzed retrospectively. The trigeminal nerve (cranial nerve V) was divided into proximal (brainstem, preganglionic, gasserian ganglion, and cavernous sinus) and distal (extracranial V1, V2, and V3) segments. Lesions were organized according to segments and correlated with the type and distribution of clinical symptoms or signs. The purpose of the study was to (1) determine the efficacy of clinical localization of cranial nerve V lesions, (2) compare CT and MR for cranial nerve V imaging, (3) develop an MR protocol for effective cranial nerve V imaging, and (4) construct a differential diagnosis by anatomic segment for lesions of cranial nerve V. Clinical localization was found to be extremely inaccurate. CT was not as sensitive as MR for lesions involving the basal cisterns and skull base and will not detect the most common brainstem lesions (small infarcts and multiple sclerosis plaques). The MR protocol developed does not rely heavily on clinical localization. On the basis of lesions found in this series, a differential diagnosis by segment was developed. Patients with cranial nerve V symptoms should undergo MR imaging according to the protocol provided in this article. CT is not as effective as MR in imaging some cranial nerve V segments. Clinical localization is inaccurate.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
NeurologyHome page
E. Seidel, C. Hansen, P. P. Urban, T. Vogt, W. Muller-Forell, and H. C. Hopf
Idiopathic trigeminal sensory neuropathy with gadolinium enhancement in the cisternal segment
Neurology, March 14, 2000; 54(5): 1191 - 1192.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1989 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.