ABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Child , 50334/analysis , 50334/legislation & jurisprudence , 50334/methods , Child Health/statistics & numerical data , Child Health/trends , 17627/legislation & jurisprudence , Public Policy/trends , 50334/policies , World Health Organization/organization & administration , Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudenceABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Differential diagnosis of migraine-like headache with and without aura needs to proceed with neuroimaging evaluation in order to rule out any secondary conditions. We report a patient with a 2 year history of migraine like headache with a good response to ergotics and due to pituitary macroadenoma. CLINICAL CASE: A 44 year old man with no familiar history of migraine presented to our hospital because of campimetric failure and a change of his migrainous features. The patient started with migraine without aura 2 years ago and was well treated with ergotics from the beginning. Field testing showed a bitemporal hemianopsia. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed an unknown pituitary macroadenoma. CONCLUSION: Pituitary macroadenoma must be included in the differential diagnosis of migraine headache although the presence of aura or the good response to ergotics.
Subject(s)
Adenoma/complications , Migraine Disorders/etiology , Pituitary Neoplasms/complications , Adenoma/pathology , Adult , Diagnosis, Differential , Humans , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Male , Pituitary Neoplasms/pathologyABSTRACT
Introducción. El diagnóstico diferencial de la cefalea de características migrañosas con o sin aura requiere la realización de una prueba de neuroimagen para descartar un origen secundario del cuadro. Presentamos el caso de un paciente con crisis seudomigrañosas de 2 años de evolución con buena respuesta a ergóticos secundarias a macroadenoma de hipófisis. Caso clínico. Paciente varón de 44 años de edad sin antecedentes familiares de migraña que ingresa por disminución del campo visual de instauración progresiva y modificación en el patrón de su cefalea. Como antecedente destaca la presencia desde hace 2 años de una o dos crisis mensuales de cefalea de características migrañosas con respuesta a ergóticos y sin aura asociada. La campimetría objetivó una hemianopsia bitemporal. Se practicó una resonancia magnética cerebral que puso de manifiesto la existencia de un macroadenoma de hipófisis no conocido. El tratamiento neuroquirúrgico del mismo se tradujo en la desaparición de dichas crisis. Conclusión. El macroadenoma de hipófisis debe ser incluido en el diagnóstico diferencial de las crisis de migraña independientemente de la presencia de aura asociada y de la respuesta a ergóticos
Introduction. Differential diagnosis of migraine-like headache with and without aura needs to proceed with neuroimaging evaluation in order to rule out any secondary conditions. We report a patient with a 2 year history of migrainelike headache with a good response to ergotics and due to pituitary macroadenoma. Clinical case. A 44 year old man with no familiar history of migraine presented to our hospital because of campimetric failure and a change of his migrainous features. The patient started with migraine without aura 2 years ago and was well treated with ergotics from the beginning. Field testing showed a bitemporal hemianopsia. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed an unknown pituitary macroadenoma. Conclusión. Pituitary macroadenoma must be included in the differential diagnosis of migraine headache although the presence of aura or the good response to ergotics
Subject(s)
Male , Adult , Humans , Migraine without Aura/etiology , Pituitary Neoplasms/complications , Adenoma/complications , Diagnosis, Differential , Ergotamine/therapeutic useSubject(s)
Arachnoid Cysts/complications , Headache/etiology , Sexual Behavior , Adult , Aged , Arachnoid Cysts/pathology , Female , Humans , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Male , Middle AgedABSTRACT
No disponible
No disponible
