You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Neuroimaging
Corpus callosum fibre disruption in Marchiafava–Bignami disease
  1. Annapoorna Bhat1,
  2. Vineet Punia1,
  3. Huey-Jen Lee2,
  4. David Marks1
  1. 1Department of Neurology and Neurosciences, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-New Jersey Medical School (As of July 1, 2013, New Jersey Medical School will become part of Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey), Newark, New Jersey, USA
  2. 2Department of Radiology, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr David Marks, Department of Neurology and Neurosciences, 185 South Orange Avenue, Newark, NJ 07101, USA; marks{at}umdnj.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/practneurol-2013-000657

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Marchiafava–Bignami disease is a rare disorder mainly seen in chronic alcoholics. Two Italian pathologists, E Marchiafava and A Bignami, first described it in 1903.1 To date, more than 150 cases have been described.2 The clinical features include cognitive impairment, neuropsychiatric features, pyramidal signs, hypertonia, dysarthria, seizures and signs of interhemispheric disconnection.3 Clinical subtypes are type A, type B and chronic. The main clinical features of type A are coma and stupor; type B patients have slightly impaired level of consciousness; and chronic cases mainly have cognitive impairment.3

    In the preimaging era, the diagnosis was established by autopsy. With the advancement in imaging techniques, CT and MRI provide the opportunity for a …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors AB and VP designed the study, collected the data, images and wrote the manuscript. H-JL analysed the images and reviewed the manuscript. DM reviewed the manuscript critically and provided intellectual input.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Patient consent Obtained.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed. This paper was reviewed by Neil Scolding, Bristol, UK.

    Linked Articles

    • Editors' choice
      Highlights from this issue
      Phil Smith Geraint Fuller
      Practical Neurology 2014; 14 133-133 Published Online First: 07 May 2014. doi: 10.1136/practneurol-2014-000904