Objective:To characterize the clinical features and MRI abnormalities of leucine-rich glioma-inactivated 1 (LGI1)-autoantibody (Ab) faciobrachial dystonic seizures (FBDS).Methods:Forty-eight patients with LGI1-Ab encephalopathy were retrospectively identified by searching our clinical and serologic database from January 1, 2002, to June 1, 2015. Of these, 26 met inclusion criteria for this case series: LGI1-Ab seropositivity and FBDS. In a separate analysis of all 48 patients initially identified, the MRIs of patients with (n = 26) and without (n = 22) FBDS were compared by 2 neuroradiologists blinded to the clinical details.Results:The median age of the 26 included patients was 62.5 years (range 37–78); 65% were men. FBDS involved arm (26), face (22), and leg (12). Ten were previously diagnosed as psychogenic. Ictal EEGs were normal in 20 of 23 assessed. Basal ganglia T1 and T2 signal abnormalities were detected in 11 patients (42%), with excellent agreement between neuroradiologists (κ scores of 0.86 and 0.93, respectively), and included T1 hyperintensity alone (2), T2 hyperintensity alone (1), or both (8). The T1 hyperintensities persisted longer than the T2 hyperintensities (median 11 weeks vs 1 week, p = 0.02). Improvement with immunotherapy (18/18) was more frequent than with antiepileptic medications (10/24). A separate analysis of all 48 patients initially identified with LGI1-Ab encephalopathy showed that basal ganglia MRI abnormalities were present in 11 of 26 with FBDS but not present in those without FBDS (0/22) (p < 0.001). In contrast, mesial temporal MRI abnormalities were less common among those with FBDS (42%) than those without (91%) (p < 0.001).Conclusions:Basal ganglia T1 hyperintensity is a clinically useful MRI biomarker of LGI1-Ab FBDS and suggests a basal ganglia localization.
In this article, we trace the history of scoring, notation, and summation of the neuromuscular signs of muscle weakness and decrease of tendon reflexes and sensation. We recommend a standard system to promote consistency in the effort introduced by Mitchell and Lewis to "represent systems and force by their signs." The scoring of neuromuscular signs began with Mitchell and Lewis in the 19th century who used pluses, minuses, and N (for normal) to express the activity of muscle stretch reflexes. Henry Plummer introduced an ordinal scoring approach for muscle weakness, reflex decrease and increase, and sensation loss. In 1919, he and Walter Sheldon and Henry Woltman introduced standard pre-printed examination forms with written instructions for notation and scoring. Robert Lovett, a Boston orthopedist, scored weak muscles of poliomyelitis patients from 2 (mild weakness) to 6 (paralyzed), 1 being normal. Lovett's approach was used, after reversing the order of the grades and decreasing each grade by 1, by a Committee of the Medical Research Council for evaluating return of muscle weakness after nerve injury. Despite dissimilarity to existing reflex and sensation scores and uneven width of grades, this approach was widely adopted for use in neurologic practice. We introduced the Neuropathy Impairment Score using a combination of the Mitchell, Plummer, and Lovett approaches, summing all individual scores of a standard set of neuromuscular examinations. In a non-representative survey of 19 neuromuscular physicians from different countries, we find that there is a considerable variability in the approaches used for grading. Assuming that scoring is useful, we herein suggest (a) impairments should be scored separately from hyperfunction and (b) for the scoring of impairments (muscle weakness, reflex decrease, and sensation loss), the same ordinal scoring approach should be used with 0 as normal and 1, 2, ... representing increasing impairment based on the judgment of percentage abnormality with corrections made for age, sex, physical fitness, and physical characteristics.
The clinical features of short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing (SUNCT) syndrome have been reviewed in 50 patients reported in the English language literature. SUNCT syndrome is a rare condition that predominates slightly in men. The mean age at onset is 50 years. It is characterized by strictly unilateral attacks centered on the orbital or periorbital regions, forehead, and temple. Generally, the pain is severe and neuralgic in character. The usual duration ranges from 5 to 250 seconds, although the reported range of duration is 2 seconds to 20 minutes. Ipsilateral conjunctival injection and lacrimation are present in most, but not all patients. Most patients are thought to have no refractory periods and this has probably been unreported in the past. Episodic and chronic forms of SUNCT exist. The attack frequency varies from less than one attack daily to more than 60 attacks per hour. The attacks are predominantly diurnal, although frequent nocturnal attacks can occur in some patients. A functional magnetic resonance imaging study in SUNCT syndrome has demonstrated ipsilateral hypothalamic activation. SUNCT was thought to be highly refractory to treatment. However, recent open-label trials of lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, and intravenous lidocaine have produced beneficial therapeutic responses. These results offer the promise of better treatments for this syndrome, but require validation in controlled trials.
Attack duration is the clinical feature that best distinguishes CPH from other trigeminal autonomic cephalgias. Although long-term therapy with indomethacin is generally well-tolerated, some patients who clinically appear to have CPH do not respond to indomethacin, and tachyphylaxis may develop in some cases. Some patients are able to stop indomethacin without headache recurrence, highlighting the importance of a trial of discontinuation. A consistent clinical profile and treatment response do not exclude the possibility of intracranial pathology.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.