What Shall We Do for the Patients with Shaky Leg Syndrome? A Review of 23 Patients.

Orthostatic tremor (OT) is not an uncommon symptom in various neurodegenerative diseases. However, the nature and pathophysiology of OT involve a complex network of tremors and dopaminergic pathways. We assessed patients who complained of prominent leg tremors described as "shaky leg." We analyzed their characteristics and evaluated them with neuroimaging and electrophysiological tools. A total of 23 patients who experienced an uncomfortable symptom of leg tremor were retrospectively enrolled from April 2014 to October 2019. Previous medical history, brain MRI, and surface electromyography (EMG) data were analyzed. The [18F]-FP-CIT brain positron emission tomography (PET) and the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) were assessed for patients who showed parkinsonism. The causes of OT varied: parkinsonism (n = 5), idiopathic causes (n = 4), secondary causes (n = 3, trauma, brain lesion, arteriovenous malformation), drug reactions (n = 3, valproate, perphenazine, haloperidol), other neurological disorders (n = 5, essential tremor, dystonia, restless leg syndrome, REM sleep behavior disorder, dementia), alcohol withdrawal (n = 1), functional movement disorder (n = 1), and an unknown cause (n = 1). The frequency range varied (2.6-15 Hz) and according to the new consensus statement on the classification of OT, 4 patients had primary OT, 2 had "primary OT plus," 12 had slow OT, and 5 had orthostatic myoclonus. The prognosis associated with the use of medication was generally poor; however, clonazepam and levodopa were the most effective drugs. In conclusion, we found that different types of OT and orthostatic myoclonus were diagnosed by electrophysiological evaluation and neuroimaging tools even if they showed the same symptoms as "shaky leg." In addition, it is possible to roughly estimate the response to medication according to the type of OT and the cause. To clarify the pathophysiology of OT, a large number of longitudinal cohort studies and detailed neuroimaging and electrophysiological evaluations are needed.

Predictive factors for early clinical improvement after intra-arterial thrombolytic therapy in acute ischemic stroke.

BACKGROUND: In acute ischemic stroke, the speed of improvement after intra-arterial thrombolytic therapy (IAT)-mediated recanalization varies. This study aimed to identify clinical and radiological variables that are predictive of early improvement (EI) after IAT in acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study included 141 consecutive patients who underwent IAT for terminal internal carotid and/or middle cerebral artery (MCA) occlusions. EI was defined as a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score less than 3 or NIHSS score improvement of 8 points or more within 72 hours of IAT. The EI and non-EI groups were compared in terms of clinical and radiological findings before and after IAT. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients showed EI (34.8%). Multivariate analysis revealed that atrial fibrillation (odds ratio [OR] .35, 95% confidence interval [CI] .14-.89, P = .028) and hyperdense MCA sign (OR .39, CI .15-.97, P = .042) were related with lack of EI. The independent EI predictors were less extensive parenchymal lesion on baseline computed tomography (OR 4.92, CI 1.74-13.9, P = .003), intermediate to good collaterals (OR 3.28, CI 1.16-9.31, P = .026), and recanalization within 6 hours of symptom onset (OR 5.2, CI 1.81-14.94, P = .002). EI associated with favorable outcomes (modified Rankin scale score 0-2) at discharge (88% versus 7%; P < .001) and 3 months after discharge (92% versus 18%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and radiological variables maybe useful for predicting EI and favorable long-term outcomes after IAT.