2010
DOI: 10.1007/s12311-010-0167-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of Cerebellar and Cerebral Volume in Migraine with Aura: A Stereological Study

Abstract: Migraine is associated with an increased risk of deep white matter lesions and subclinical posterior circulation infarcts. A significant association between deep white matter hyperintensities and cerebral atrophy is true for various neurological diseases; it was not specifically proven in migraine. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cerebellar and cerebral volume and volume ratios for cerebellum using the Cavalieri principle. We also aimed to examine whether migraine with aura causes cerebellar and cere… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In headache/migraine, changes in GM volume are not haphazard across the brain but tend to involve specific and highly organized cerebral areas. Although some studies (91, 92) did not find differences in cerebellar, global, and regional (ie, GM and WM) cerebral volumes between patients with migraine and normal subjects, other studies have questioned this finding. In fact, migraineurs showed atrophy in regions involved in central pain processing (anterior and posterior cingulate cortices, insula, orbitofrontal cortex, prefrontal cortex, posterior parietal cortex) (93–95), but not in those specific for migraine (eg, brainstem).…”
Section: Understanding Mechanisms and Tracking Clinical Progression Omentioning
confidence: 98%
“…In headache/migraine, changes in GM volume are not haphazard across the brain but tend to involve specific and highly organized cerebral areas. Although some studies (91, 92) did not find differences in cerebellar, global, and regional (ie, GM and WM) cerebral volumes between patients with migraine and normal subjects, other studies have questioned this finding. In fact, migraineurs showed atrophy in regions involved in central pain processing (anterior and posterior cingulate cortices, insula, orbitofrontal cortex, prefrontal cortex, posterior parietal cortex) (93–95), but not in those specific for migraine (eg, brainstem).…”
Section: Understanding Mechanisms and Tracking Clinical Progression Omentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Their results suggest that patients with migraine with aura do not have a significant difference in cerebellar and cerebral volumes and cerebellar/cerebral volume ratios compared to the non-migraine group. 39 We concluded in our study based on shape analysis method that the cerebellum shape was not influenced in migraine. Although general shape differences were not found in cerebellum, there were some regional changes in migraine patients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 53%
“…1,11,[38][39][40] Cerebellar abnormalities are thought to be the underlying cause for functional and metabolic disturbances in migraine. Brain balance changes have been recognized in migraine, but cerebellar function between or during attacks have been assessed only in a few studies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Migraine (Rocca et al, 2003a;Rocca et al, 2003b;Rocca et al, 2006a;Rocca et al, 2006b;Absinta et al, 2012) MRI and VBM Subtle grey matter lesions using T1-weighted MRI, and VBM. Visible on T2-weighted MRI Migraine (Adami et al, 2008;Agarwal et al, 2008;Del Sette et al, 2008;Rao et al, 2008;Rigatelli, 2008;Rocca et al, 2008;Schmitz et al, 2008a;Valfre et al, 2008;Bugnicourt et al, 2009;Kruit et al, 2010;Yilmaz-Kusbeci et al, 2010;Trauninger et al, 2011;Maggioni et al, 2012;Palm-Meinders et al, 2012;Rotstein et al, 2012;Aradi et al, 2013;Dinia et al, 2013;Seneviratne et al, 2013) are VBM and surface-based morphometry (SBM). Some of the pitfalls of the traditional ROI-based morphometry are as follows: (i) it is used primarily on large areas, and therefore smaller differences may be overlooked; and (ii) it is a time-consuming process and cannot be used for assessing large datasets.…”
Section: Structural Mri Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%