Bigler Erin D
The use of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is overviewed in this chapter. Although in the majority of mTBI cases no abnormality will be shown, the common neuropathological changes that may be identified on CT and/or MRI are highlighted with an emphasis that such abnormalities provide only a macroscopic perspective of the pathology that may be viewed. Emphasis is placed on understanding the subtle nature of neuropathology that may accompany mTBI, the potential for dynamic changes that vary with time post-injury and that detection depends on which neuroimaging method is used. The role of advanced neuroimaging techniques that provide quantitative information about potential network-level damage using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and resting state functional MRI is overviewed with numerous examples provided that illustrate neuroimaging techniques that detect mTBI abnormalities. The common structural neuroimaging methods and findings in mTBI will be overviewed. The field of neuroimaging is expansive and the basics of neuroimaging will not be covered in this review. For the reader who would like additional background information in neuroimaging of TBI, Wilde et al. (2012) provide such a synopsis. The chapter will conclude with a section that relates the macroscopically identified pathologies using conventional and advanced neuroimaging techniques with the ultrastructure and underlying pathophysiology of mTBI. The neuroimaging investigation by Yuh et al. (2013) represents a comprehensive investigation of the common, visibly detected abnormalities observed in mTBI using day-of-injury (DOI) computed tomography (CT) followed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) during the subacute timeframe. In the Yuh et al. study, 135 mTBI patients were evaluated for acute head injury in three separate level 1 trauma centers in the United States and all were enrolled through an emergency department (ED) for prospective 3-month neurobehavioral outcome, assessed by the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E). Although DOI CT imaging was done acutely, MRI on average was performed within 2 weeks postinjury. The National Institutes of Health has established the TBI Common Data Elements (TBI-CDEs; Haacke et al., 2010; Yue et al., 2013) for classifying both acute as well as chronic abnormalities, with all scan abnormalities identified by CDE criteria. CDE guidelines for pathoanatomical TBI findings on DOI CT or early MRI include skull fracture, hematoma (either epidural and/or subdural), traumatic axonal injury (defined as one to three foci), and diffuse axonal injury (DAI; defined as at least four foci). DOI CT foci are typically characterized as visibly identified contusions or intraparenchymally identified petechia. On MRI, such foci may take the form of white matter (WM) signal abnormality (hyperintense) and/or characteristic signal changes (hypointense) that reflect prior hemorrhage, often at the gray matter (GM)-WM interface. All of these types of macroscopic pathologies will be depicted in this chapter. Importantly in the Yuh et al. investigation, TBI-CDE features of more severe TBI such as midline shift ≥5 mm and partial/complete basal cistern effacement were not observed in any of the mTBI patients as part of that study. This is understandable and highlights that the visible abnormalities in mTBI do not reach the threshold associated with more severe TBI; nonetheless, very significant parenchymal injury may accompany mTBI. The 2013 Yuh et al. investigation was a subset of a much larger investigation (McMahon et al., 2013) that prospectively followed 375 mTBI patients at 3, 6, and 12 months. The McMahon et al. (2013) study found that by 1 year, 22.4% of mTBI patients were still below functional status as measured by the GOS-E. Although there was an association of positive CT findings with poorer 3-month outcome, by 1 year whether DOI CT was abnormal or not did not predict outcome. Clearly, mTBI results in lasting sequelae for some, but this is not necessarily predicted by DOI CT findings. As will be shown in this chapter, advanced neuroimaging studies provide additional information and insight into the neuropathological effects of mTBI potentially useful in better understanding mTBI sequelae as well as providing additional information in the assessment and treatment of mTBI. Figure 31.1 summarizes the findings of Yuh et al., which show that 44% of all mTBIs in this cohort of ED assessed individuals with mTBI had at least an identifiable neuroimaging abnormality. Clearly MRI was superior to CT in identifying abnormalities, especially those neuroimaging markers that infer axonal pathology. In fact, 27% of mTBI patients with normal head CTs had abnormal MRIs that were otherwise “missed” by DOI CT imaging. Of the 135 mTBI patients assessed in the Yu et al. investigation, only one had a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 13, with 26/135 (19%) assessed with a GCS of 14 and 108/135 (80%) with a GCS of 15. As such, the majority had a classically defined GCS score, yet almost half had some positive neuroimaging finding. This observation underscores the frequency with which MRI may identify structural pathology in mTBI, even with a GCS of 15. In terms of the frequency of CDE findings and their relation to outcome, presence of any type of CDE-identified TBI abnormality increased the likelihood of lower GOS-E at 3 months, supporting the importance of identifying neuroimaging-based MRI abnormalities because of increased sensitivity in detecting gross pathology (Bigler, 2013a,b). However, the majority scanned had negative conventional imaging. For those with DOI CT, presence of subarachnoid hemorrhage was associated with poorer 3-month GOS-E. For those with positive MRI findings in the subacute time frame, presence of contusion or DAI was found to predict lower GOS-E. Figure 31.2 from the Yuh et al. investigation depicts some common CT and MRI findings in mTBI during the acute to early subacute timeframe. What is depicted in this illustration shows many of the classic observable, macroscopic lesion types in mTBI, which will be discussed more fully throughout this chapter. Impressively, the Yuh et al. study shows that greater than 40% of mTBI patients initially evaluated within the ED will have positive CDE-identified abnormalities. However, the CDE technique requires visual identification of the abnormality from conventional clinical imaging (CT and/or MRI) studies and does not incorporate advanced magnetic resonance (MR) techniques to be discussed in subsequent sections. Nonetheless, it is important to understand what constitutes early neuroimaging identified abnormalities and how such findings relate to underlying neuropathology. Conventional CT and MRI clinical studies configure anatomical images with millimeter resolution, meaning they detect gross pathology at a similar level, although submillimeter MR resolution is now possible (Yassa et al., 2010; Heidemann et al., 2012). In contrast, the fundamental pathological changes that occur from TBI happen at the micron and nanometer cellular level (Bigler and Maxwell, 2011, 2012), with only the largest of lesions being visible with contemporary neuroimaging (Bigler, 2013b). This means for brain injuries in the mild range, with the subtlest of neural injury that the macroscopic lesions will not be observed. However, as will be discussed in this chapter, this does not mean that those with negative imaging have no underlying pathology.
本章概述了计算机断层扫描(CT)和磁共振成像(MRI)在轻度创伤性脑损伤(mTBI)中的应用。尽管在大多数mTBI病例中不会显示出异常,但本章重点介绍了在CT和/或MRI上可能发现的常见神经病理学变化,并强调这些异常仅提供了可观察到的病理学宏观视角。重点在于理解mTBI可能伴随的神经病理学细微本质、损伤后随时间变化的动态改变可能性以及检测结果取决于所使用的神经成像方法。本章概述了先进神经成像技术的作用,这些技术使用扩散张量成像(DTI)和静息态功能MRI提供有关潜在网络水平损伤的定量信息,并提供了大量示例来说明检测mTBI异常的神经成像技术。还将概述mTBI中常见的结构神经成像方法和发现。神经成像领域非常广阔,本综述不会涵盖神经成像的基础知识。对于希望获得TBI神经成像更多背景信息的读者,王尔德等人(2012年)提供了这样一个概述。本章最后一部分将把使用传统和先进神经成像技术宏观识别的病理学与mTBI的超微结构和潜在病理生理学联系起来。Yuh等人(2013年)的神经成像研究代表了一项全面调查,该调查使用损伤当天(DOI)计算机断层扫描(CT),随后在亚急性时间范围内进行磁共振成像(MRI),观察mTBI中常见的、可明显检测到的异常情况。在Yuh等人的研究中,135名mTBI患者在美国三个不同的一级创伤中心接受了急性头部损伤评估,所有患者均通过急诊科(ED)登记,以便通过扩展格拉斯哥预后量表(GOS-E)对其进行为期3个月的前瞻性神经行为结果评估。尽管DOI CT成像在急性期进行,但MRI平均在受伤后2周内进行。美国国立卫生研究院已经建立了TBI通用数据元素(TBI-CDEs;哈克等人,2010年;岳等人,2013年),用于对急性和慢性异常进行分类,所有扫描异常均根据CDE标准进行识别。DOI CT或早期MRI上TBI病理解剖学发现的CDE指南包括颅骨骨折、血肿(硬膜外和/或硬膜下)、创伤性轴索损伤(定义为1至3个病灶)和弥漫性轴索损伤(DAI;定义为至少4个病灶)。DOI CT病灶通常表现为明显识别出的挫伤或脑实质内识别出的瘀点。在MRI上,此类病灶可能表现为白质(WM)信号异常(高信号)和/或特征性信号变化(低信号),这通常反映先前的出血情况,出血部位常位于灰质(GM)-WM界面。本章将描述所有这些类型的宏观病理学。重要的是,在Yuh等人的调查中,作为该研究的一部分,在任何mTBI患者中均未观察到更严重TBI的TBI-CDE特征,如中线移位≥5mm和部分/完全基底池消失。这是可以理解的,并且突出表明mTBI中可见的异常未达到与更严重TBI相关的阈值;尽管如此,mTBI可能伴随非常显著的脑实质损伤。2013年Yuh等人的调查只是一项更大调查(麦克马洪等人,2013年)的一个子集,该更大调查对375名mTBI患者进行了3、6和12个月的前瞻性随访。麦克马洪等人(2013年)的研究发现,到1年时,22.4%的mTBI患者根据GOS-E测量仍处于功能状态以下。尽管CT阳性结果与3个月较差的预后相关,但到1年时,DOI CT是否异常并不能预测预后。显然,mTBI会给一些人带来持久的后遗症,但这不一定能通过DOI CT结果预测。正如本章将要展示的,先进的神经成像研究为mTBI的神经病理学效应提供了额外的信息和见解,这可能有助于更好地理解mTBI后遗症,并为mTBI的评估和治疗提供更多信息。图31.1总结了Yuh等人的研究结果,该结果表明,在该急诊科评估的mTBI个体队列中,44%的所有mTBI至少有一个可识别的神经成像异常。显然,MRI在识别异常方面优于CT,尤其是那些推断轴索病理的神经成像标记物。事实上,27%头部CT正常的mTBI患者MRI异常,而这些异常在DOI CT成像中“未被发现”。在Yuh等人调查的135名mTBI患者中,只有一名患者的格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)评分为13,26/135(19%)的患者GCS评分为14,108/135(80%)的患者GCS评分为15。因此,大多数患者具有经典定义的GCS评分,但几乎一半患者有一些阳性神经成像发现。这一观察结果强调了MRI在mTBI中识别结构病理的频率,即使GCS评分为15。就CDE发现的频率及其与预后的关系而言,任何类型的CDE识别出的TBI异常的存在都会增加3个月时GOS-E较低的可能性,这支持了识别基于神经成像的MRI异常的重要性,因为其在检测大体病理方面具有更高的敏感性(比格勒,2013a,b)。然而,大多数扫描结果为传统成像阴性。对于DOI CT扫描为阳性的患者,蛛网膜下腔出血的存在与3个月时较差的GOS-E相关。对于在亚急性时间范围内MRI结果为阳性的患者,挫伤或DAI的存在被发现可预测较低的GOS-E。图31.2来自Yuh等人的调查,描绘了mTBI在急性至亚急性早期时间范围内一些常见的CT和MRI发现。本图所示内容展示了mTBI中许多经典的、可观察到的宏观病变类型,本章将对此进行更全面的讨论。令人印象深刻的是,Yuh等人的研究表明,在急诊科最初接受评估的mTBI患者中,超过40%会有CDE识别出的阳性异常。然而,CDE技术需要从传统临床成像(CT和/或MRI)研究中目视识别异常,并且未纳入后续章节将讨论的先进磁共振(MR)技术。尽管如此,了解早期神经成像识别出的异常情况的构成以及这些发现与潜在神经病理学的关系非常重要。传统的CT和MRI临床研究以毫米分辨率配置解剖图像,这意味着它们在相似水平上检测大体病理,尽管现在已经可以实现亚毫米级的MR分辨率(亚萨等人,2010年;海德曼等人,2012年)。相比之下,TBI引起的基本病理变化发生在微米和纳米细胞水平(比格勒和麦克斯韦,2011年,2012年),当代神经成像只能看到最大的病变(比格勒,2013b)。这意味着对于轻度范围内的脑损伤,由于神经损伤非常细微,不会观察到宏观病变。然而,正如本章将要讨论的,这并不意味着成像结果为阴性的患者没有潜在病理。