Brain sulci and gyri: A practical anatomical review

A Mathematical Model of Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment on the Method of Fuzzy Duster Analysis

“…Despite the profound sudden decline in expressive and receptive language function the patient had experienced, the volume of infarction seemed relatively modest. Extensive evidence from neuroimaging studies, namely large-scale structural and functional connectivity analyses have shown that the inferior parietal lobe (particularly the angular gyrus) represents a key network hub that interconnects multiple cortical domains subserving different sensory, motor and higher associational modalities [3][4][5][6]. Thus, this clinical-radiological discrepancy can be explained by this representing a strategic infarction, given the critical role the inferior parietal lobe plays in the processing of language [7,8].…”

A brief history of topographical anatomy

“…; Afif & Mertens, ; Ribas, ; Campero et al. ): in neurosurgery, as in so many other surgical specialisms, surgeons have returned to the dissecting room with the aim of enhancing their clinical practice.…”

“…Today, a detailed knowledge of the anatomy of the cerebral sulci and gyri is part of a neurosurgeon's armamentarium: localising a craniotomy procedure, recognising eloquent areas of the brain (complemented by intraoperative neurophysiological testing), and accessing deep areas of the brain, all depend on identifying appropriate anatomical cues. An extensive literature of detailed cadaveric dissection studies now documents the sulci used as anatomical landmarks or microsurgical corridors in transcisternal, transfissural and transsulcal approaches (Ribas et al 2006;Afif & Mertens, 2010;Ribas, 2010;Campero et al 2014): in neurosurgery, as in so many other surgical specialisms, surgeons have returned to the dissecting room with the aim of enhancing their clinical practice.…”

Robust estimation of sulcal morphology

“…While this combination allows for the estimation of sulcal morphology in addition to standard measures such as cortical thickness, FreeSurfer and BrainVISA rely on different anatomical landmarks (Mikhael et al, 2018) which can yield differences in their resulting cortical surface reconstructions (Lee et al, 2006). Admittedly, determining the boundaries for an individual sulcus and incorporating individual cortical variability is difficult (Campero et al, 2014; John et al, 2006; Mikhael et al, 2018; Ono et al, 1990; Rhoton, 2007; ten Donkelaar et al, 2018; Welker, 1990). While an ennumerate amount of other methods have already been proposed to identify and characterize sulcal morphology (e.g., Andreasen et al, 1994; Auzias et al, 2015; Beeston & Taylor, 2000; Behnke et al, 2003; Eskildsen et al, 2005; Im et al, 2010; Jones et al, 2000; Le Goualher et al, 1996, 1998; Le Troter et al, 2012; Li & Shen, 2011; Li et al, 2010; Lohmann & von Cramon, 2000; Lohmann et al, 2008; Nowinski et al, 1996; Oguz et al, 2008; Perrot et al, 2011; Royackkers et al, 1999; Thompson et al, 1996; Vaillant & Davatzikos, 1997; Yang & Kruggel, 2008; Yun et al, 2013), ultimately these all are again using different landmarks than FreeSurfer uses for cortical parcellations (i.e., volume, thickness, surface area, gyrification).…”