Reorganization of sensory networks after subcortical vestibular infarcts: A longitudinal symptom-related voxel-based morphometry study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We aimed to delineate common principles of reorganization after infarcts of the subcortical vestibular circuitry related to the clinical symptomatology. Our hypothesis was that the recovery of specific symptoms is associated with changes in distinct regions within the core vestibular, somatosensory, and visual cortical and subcortical networks. METHODS: We used voxel- and surface-based morphometry to investigate structural reorganization of subcortical and cortical brain areas in 42 patients with a unilateral, subcortical infarct with vestibular and ocular motor deficits in the acute phase. The patients received structural neuroimaging and clinical monitoring twice (acute phase and after 6 months) to detect within-subject changes over time. RESULTS: In patients with vestibular signs such as tilts of the subjective visual vertical (SVV) and ocular torsion in the acute phase, significant volumetric increases in the superficial white matter around the parieto-opercular (retro-)insular vestibular cortex (PIVC) were found at follow-up. In patients with SVV tilts, spontaneous nystagmus, and rotatory vertigo in the acute phase, gray matter volume decreases were located in the cerebellum and the visual cortex bilaterally at follow-up. Patients with saccade pathology demonstrated volumetric decreases in cerebellar, thalamic, and cortical centers for ocular motor control. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the role of the PIVC as the key hub for vestibular processing and reorganization. The volumetric decreases represent the reciprocal interaction of the vestibular, visual, and ocular motor systems during self-location and egomotion detection. A modulation in vestibular and ocular motor as well as visual networks was induced independently of the vestibular lesion site.

[Tension type headaches : Quo vadis?] / Kopfschmerz vom Spannungstyp : Quo vadis?

Episodic tension type headache is considered to be the most prevalent primary headache. If tension type headache occurs on more than 15 days per month for at least 3 consecutive months, it is classified as chronic tension type headache. In recent years, it has become obvious that it is difficult to distinguish between episodic tension type headache and a moderate migraine attack and also between chronic tension type headache and chronic migraine. In the paper, we discuss how the differential diagnosis can be more specific and which therapy is supported by the literature. In addition, we discuss differences and similarities of tension type headache and migraine and a possible similar pathophysiology of both (convergence hypothesis).

Headache service quality: evaluation of quality indicators in 14 specialist-care centres.

BACKGROUND: The study was a collaboration between Lifting The Burden (LTB) and the European Headache Federation (EHF). Its aim was to evaluate the implementation of quality indicators for headache care Europe-wide in specialist headache centres (level-3 according to the EHF/LTB standard). METHODS: Employing previously-developed instruments in 14 such centres, we made enquiries, in each, of health-care providers (doctors, nurses, psychologists, physiotherapists) and 50 patients, and analysed the medical records of 50 other patients. Enquiries were in 9 domains: diagnostic accuracy, individualized management, referral pathways, patient's education and reassurance, convenience and comfort, patient's satisfaction, equity and efficiency of the headache care, outcome assessment and safety. RESULTS: Our study showed that highly experienced headache centres treated their patients in general very well. The centres were content with their work and their patients were content with their treatment. Including disability and quality-of-life evaluations in clinical assessments, and protocols regarding safety, proved problematic: better standards for these are needed. Some centres had problems with follow-up: many specialised centres operated in one-touch systems, without possibility of controlling long-term management or the success of treatments dependent on this. CONCLUSIONS: This first Europe-wide quality study showed that the quality indicators were workable in specialist care. They demonstrated common trends, producing evidence of what is majority practice. They also uncovered deficits that might be remedied in order to improve quality. They offer the means of setting benchmarks against which service quality may be judged. The next step is to take the evaluation process into non-specialist care (EHF/LTB levels 1 and 2).