Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2002
Gait apraxia after bilateral supplementary motor area lesion.
Клинический случайСтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Della Sala S, Francescani A, Spinnler H
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The study aimed at addressing the issue of the precise nature of gait apraxia and the cerebral dysfunction responsible for it.
METHODS: The case of a patient, affected by a bilateral infarction limited to a portion of the anterior cerebral artery territory is reported. The patient's ability to walk was formally assessed by means of a new standardised test.
RESULTS: Due to an anomaly within the anterior cerebral artery system, the patient's lesion was centred on the supplementary motor regions of both hemispheres. He presented with clear signs of gait apraxia that could not be accounted for by paresis or other neurological deficits. No signs of any other form of apraxia were detected.
CONCLUSIONS: The clinical profile of the patient and the analysis of 49 cases from previous literature suggest that gait apraxia should be considered a clinical entity in its own right and lesions to the supplementary motor areas are responsible for it.
METHODS: The case of a patient, affected by a bilateral infarction limited to a portion of the anterior cerebral artery territory is reported. The patient's ability to walk was formally assessed by means of a new standardised test.
RESULTS: Due to an anomaly within the anterior cerebral artery system, the patient's lesion was centred on the supplementary motor regions of both hemispheres. He presented with clear signs of gait apraxia that could not be accounted for by paresis or other neurological deficits. No signs of any other form of apraxia were detected.
CONCLUSIONS: The clinical profile of the patient and the analysis of 49 cases from previous literature suggest that gait apraxia should be considered a clinical entity in its own right and lesions to the supplementary motor areas are responsible for it.