Vol.64

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12
• Supplement

Vol.63

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12
• Supplement

Vol.62

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12
• Supplement

Vol.61

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12
• Supplement

Vol.60

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12
• Supplement

Vol.59

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12
• Supplement

Vol.58

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12
• Supplement

Vol.57

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12
• Supplement

Vol.56

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12
• Supplement

Vol.55

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12
• Supplement

Vol.54

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12
• Supplement

Vol.53

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12

Vol.52

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12

Vol.51

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12

Vol.50

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12

Vol.49

• No.1
• No.2/3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12

Vol.48

• No.1
• No.2
• No.3
• No.4
• No.5
• No.6
• No.7
• No.8
• No.9
• No.10
• No.11
• No.12

• Vol.47 to 1
  (Members Only)

• HOME
• Vol.45 No.8
• CLINICA NEUROL, 45: 571−574, 2005
• Vol.45 No.8 contents

Original Article

Diagnostic validity of sensorimotor stroke

Hiroyuki Kawano, M.D.¹⁾, Kiminobu Yonemura, M.D.²⁾, Youhei Misumi, M.D.¹⁾, Yoichiro Hashimoto, M.D.¹⁾, Teruyuki Hirano, M.D.³⁾ and Makoto Uchino, M.D.³⁾

¹⁾Department of Neurology, and ²⁾Department of Strokology, Kumamoto City Hospital
³⁾Department of Neurology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University

Background: In the clinical practice, "sensorimotor stroke" (SMS) do not always correspond to the diagnosis of small-vessel occlusion (SVO, lacune). We aimed to evaluate diagnostic validity of acute SMS with the use of diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI).
Methods: We analyzed 57 consecutive patients with first-ever acute ischemic stroke presenting with SMS. Acute infarcts were identified on DWI within 7 days of stroke onset in all patients. Vascular risk factors, emboligenic heart diseases, occlusive cerebral artery disease, infarct size and location, and stroke subtype were evaluated. Stroke subtype was classified according to the TOAST classification.
Results: SMS occurred in 57 cases; 40 men and 17 women (mean±age, 68.5±12.1 years). Frequency of hypertension was the highest (n=30, 53%) in the vascular risk factors. Emboligenic heart diseases and cerebral artery disease were identified in 14 (25%) and 11 patients (19%), respectively. DWI revealed subcortical infarcts in 47 patients (84%) and infarct diameter <15 mm in 25 (44%). Only 18 patients (32%) met the diagnostic criteria for SVO.
Conclusion: Diagnostic validity of acute SMS was rather low. The clinical picture of SMS is far from being used as synonymous of a SVO.

(CLINICA NEUROL, 45: 571−574, 2005)
key words: small-vessel occlusion, sensorimotor stroke, lacunar syndrome, diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI), TOAST classification

(Received: 30-Aug-04)