Brain and behavior · 2024
Visual evoked potential in generalized joint hypermobility: A case-control study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jahromi Leila Sadat Mohamadi, Sayyadi Amin, Askarian Aida, Dabbaghmanesh Alireza, Roshanzamir Sharareh
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Generalized joint hypermobility (GJH) can be the result of several hereditary connective tissue disorders, especially Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Cerebrovascular manifestations are among the most common complications in this disorder, and understanding their extent can help better diagnosis and prevention of hazardous events. We investigated visual evoked potential (VEP) changes in patients with GJH and compared them with healthy individuals.
METHODS: Our case-control study included 90 patients who fulfilled the Beighton score (B score) for joint hypermobility and other 90 healthy participants. All of them went under VEP study, and the amplitude and latency of the evoked potential (P100) were compared to each other.
RESULTS: The Case group had significantly higher B score (7.18 ± 0.967 vs. 1.18 ± 0.712), P100 latency (110.23 ± 6.64 ms vs. 100.18 ± 4.273 ms), and amplitude (6.54 ± 1.26 mv vs. 6.50 ± 1.29 mv) compared with the Control group, but the difference was only significant regarding B score, and P100 latency (p-value <.0001). Moreover, both latency and amplitude of P100 had significantly positive correlations with the B score in the Case group (p-value <.0001), but such correlations were not found in the Control group (p-value = .059).
CONCLUSION: Our study could reveal VEP changes, especially significant P100 latency in GJH patients without previous neurologic or musculoskeletal disorders. Whether these changes are due to GJH itself or are predictive of inevitable neurologic disease or visual pathway involvement, particularly Multiple Sclerosis needs further investigation with longer follow-up periods.
METHODS: Our case-control study included 90 patients who fulfilled the Beighton score (B score) for joint hypermobility and other 90 healthy participants. All of them went under VEP study, and the amplitude and latency of the evoked potential (P100) were compared to each other.
RESULTS: The Case group had significantly higher B score (7.18 ± 0.967 vs. 1.18 ± 0.712), P100 latency (110.23 ± 6.64 ms vs. 100.18 ± 4.273 ms), and amplitude (6.54 ± 1.26 mv vs. 6.50 ± 1.29 mv) compared with the Control group, but the difference was only significant regarding B score, and P100 latency (p-value <.0001). Moreover, both latency and amplitude of P100 had significantly positive correlations with the B score in the Case group (p-value <.0001), but such correlations were not found in the Control group (p-value = .059).
CONCLUSION: Our study could reveal VEP changes, especially significant P100 latency in GJH patients without previous neurologic or musculoskeletal disorders. Whether these changes are due to GJH itself or are predictive of inevitable neurologic disease or visual pathway involvement, particularly Multiple Sclerosis needs further investigation with longer follow-up periods.