Avaliação pelo P300 de crianças com e sem epilepsia e rendimento escolar

Abstract

RESUMO -Dificuldade de aprendizagem é situação comum em crianças com epilepsia. Distúrbios da inteligência têm sido associados com epilepsia. O potencial cognitivo (P300) é um adjunto clínico para mensurar neurofisiologicamente o processo cognitivo. Foram estudadas 99 crianças com 10 anos a 11 anos e 11 meses. Do Grupo I, sem epilepsia, faziam parte 64 crianças, das quais 32 com bom rendimento e outras 32 com mau rendimento escolar. Do Grupo II, com epilepsia, faziam parte 35 crianças, sendo 21 com bom rendimento escolar e 15 com mau rendimento escolar. Não foi encontrada diferença significativa na latência do P300 entre os dois grupos. Quando foram estratificados segundo o desempenho escolar, as crianças do Grupo I, com bom rendimento escolar, apresentaram latência do P300 de 336 ms e as com mau rendimento escolar, latência de 382 ms; as crianças do Grupo II, com bom rendimento escolar, apresentaram latência do P300 de 363 ms e as com mau rendimento escolar, latência de 400 ms, com diferença significativa. Essa diferença estava localizada entre as crianças não epilépticas com bom desempenho escolar e as com mau desempenho escolar, epilépticas ou não.PALAVRAS-CHAVE: epilepsia, potencial evocado, P300, cognição, rendimento escolar. Assessment through P300 of epileptic and non-epileptic children and school performanceABSTRACT -Learning disability is common in epileptic children. Epilepsy has been associated with disorders of intelligence. Cognitive potential (P300) is considered to be a clinical aid in the neurophysiological measurement of the cognitive process. Ninety-nine children between the ages of 10 years and 11 years and 11 months formed our sample, with good and poor school performance. Group I, non-epileptic, had 64 children of whom 32 had good and 32 poor school performance. Group II, epileptic, had 35 children, of whom 21 had good and 15 poor school performance. No significant difference in P300 latency was found between Groups I and II. When groups were stratified based on school performance, Group I children with good school performance had P300 latency of 336 ms, while the ones with poor school performance had latency of 382 ms. Group II children with good school performance had P300 latency of 363, while the ones with poor school performance had latency of 400 ms. There was a statistically significant difference between the non-epileptic children with good school performance and the children with poor school performance, epileptic or not.

Potencial Evocado Auditivo de Longa Latência – P3 em crianças com e sem queixas de dificuldade de aprendizagem

“…This finding was also confirmed in this present study, with a predominance of men in both groups. These results agree with the scientific literature (3,5,13) , which reports predominantly male occurrences, especially in children with poor school performance. Researchers (18,19) reported differences in the acoustic stimulus processing in the peripheral and central level between genders, being slower in males, which undermines the development language of cognitive skills, reflecting losses in school learning.…”

“…For the control group, mean P3 latency was 310.59 ms ± 53.71, results that confirm other studies in children with good school performance, in which the means of P3 latency were 332.25 ms ± 34.57 msec (3) , 336 ms ± 53 ms (13) , 315 ms ± 35.7 ms (20) , 320 ms ± 32.80 ms (21) , 316 ms ± 32.2 ms (22) , 305.71 ms ± 4.76 ms (23) . When comparing P3 latency values between the groups, we found that the mean of the study group (417.24 ms) was significantly higher in relation to the control group (310.58 ms).…”

“…In another study (13) , P3 also proved to be a reliable evaluation in identifying alterations of the central auditory system. The authors evaluated the P3 of two groups, the first composed by children without epilepsy, in which 32 had good school performance and 32, poor school performance.…”

Potencial evocado cognitivo e desordem de processamento auditivo em crianças com distúrbios de leitura e escrita

“…P300 studies done on similar populations do not use P300 amplitude as a parameter in clinically differentiating groups 13 , and consider latency as a more important parameter to analyze results 14,15 . Test results were analyzed based on the percent occurrence of speech-in-noise and SSW test outcomes.…”

“…The individuals enrolled in this study diagnosed with specific reading and writing disorder had the same social-economic and cultural status, as these variables could affect some AP skills, as in order to be successful at school one needs to be able to properly process auditory information 15,16 . Pure-tone audiometry and acoustic impedance tests were carried out to rule out the presence of outer, middle, and inner ear disorders that could affect the results of cognitive evoked potential, SSW, and speech-in-noise tests.…”