FrontalCortex, Inc. is a non-profit corporation dedicated to neurology education.

Another Arnold!

Topic: Pediatric

Created on Saturday, November 8 2008 by rednucleus

Last modified on Saturday, November 8 2008.

A child has been referred to you as having Arnold-Chiari malformation type II. The presence of which one of the following would suggest type I, not type II malformation?

 
        A) Medullary kink
 
        B) Normal brain
 
        C) Beaked tectum
 
        D) Inter-digitated gyri
 
        E) Inferiorly displaced cerebellum
 

 


Back to the question = Go back to the top of the page.
See another question like this one = Reload a different version of this question ().
Click here for a random question = Load a random question from the database.
Clone this question = Use this question as a template to create a totally NEW question.
Rate this question = Enter detailed rating for this question!
Average user rating for this question = 4 = How users like you have rated this question.
This question was created on November 08, 2008 by rednucleus.
This question was last modified on November 08, 2008.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANSWERS AND EXPLANATIONS




A) Medullary kink

This answer is incorrect.


Grossly normal brain is compatible with type I, not type II, malformation. Type II malformation may demonstrate medullary kink, beaked tectum, inter-digitated gyri, and inferiorly displaced vermis, and that their cerebellum seems to creep around the brainstem.  (See References)

Back to the questionSee another question like this oneClick here for a random questionClone this question Rate this questionAverage user rating for this question = 4
Please log in if you want to rate questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




B) Normal brain

This answer is correct.


Grossly normal brain is compatible with type I, not type II, malformation. Type II malformation may demonstrate medullary kink, beaked tectum, inter-digitated gyri, and inferiorly displaced vermis, and that their cerebellum seems to creep around the brainstem.  (See References)

Back to the questionSee another question like this oneClick here for a random questionClone this question Rate this questionAverage user rating for this question = 4
Please log in if you want to rate questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




C) Beaked tectum

This answer is incorrect.


Grossly normal brain is compatible with type I, not type II, malformation. Type II malformation may demonstrate medullary kink, beaked tectum, inter-digitated gyri, and inferiorly displaced vermis, and that their cerebellum seems to creep around the brainstem.  (See References)

Back to the questionSee another question like this oneClick here for a random questionClone this question Rate this questionAverage user rating for this question = 4
Please log in if you want to rate questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




D) Inter-digitated gyri

This answer is incorrect.


Grossly normal brain is compatible with type I, not type II, malformation. Type II malformation may demonstrate medullary kink, beaked tectum, inter-digitated gyri, and inferiorly displaced vermis, and that their cerebellum seems to creep around the brainstem.  (See References)

Back to the questionSee another question like this oneClick here for a random questionClone this question Rate this questionAverage user rating for this question = 4
Please log in if you want to rate questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




E) Inferiorly displaced cerebellum

This answer is incorrect.


Grossly normal brain is compatible with type I, not type II, malformation. Type II malformation may demonstrate medullary kink, beaked tectum, inter-digitated gyri, and inferiorly displaced vermis, and that their cerebellum seems to creep around the brainstem.  (See References)

Back to the questionSee another question like this oneClick here for a random questionClone this question Rate this questionAverage user rating for this question = 4
Please log in if you want to rate questions.

 

 

 

 

References:

1. Victor, M., and Ropper, A.H. (2001). Adams and Victor's Principles of Neurology, 7th Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York. (ISBN:0070674973)Advertising:
Back to the questionSee another question like this oneClick here for a random questionClone this question Rate this questionAverage user rating for this question = 4
Please log in if you want to rate questions.

 

FrontalCortex.com -- Neurology Review Questions -- Neurology Boards -- Board Review -- Residency Inservice Training Exam -- RITE Exam Review
pediatric
Another Arnold!
Question ID: 110808114
Question written by rednucleus. (C) FrontalCortex.com 2006-2009, all rights reserved. Created: 11/08/2008
Modified: 11/08/2008
Estimated Permutations: 120

User Comments About This Question:

1 user entries
 

jdmiles
pediatric Comment Nov 09, 2008 @ 11:55
Thanks to rednucleus for this well-thought out question.

I did want to point out to the reader that, while a normal brain is more suggestive of a type I Chiari malformation, a type I Chiari does not guarantee a normal brain.

There were 4 types of malformations described by Hans Chiari that we now refer to as Chiari malformations. Chiari I is a protrusion of part of the cerebellar tonsils through the foramen magnum. In Chiari II, there is a Chiari I plus downward displacement of the medulla and 4th ventricle. A Chiari III malformation is defined as cervical spina bifida with a cerebellar encephalocele. The Chiari IV malformation (a term now not often used) is probably unrelated, and is defined as hypoplasia of the cerebellum, and does not involve protrusion of the tonsils through the foramen magnum.

Syringomyelia, syringobulbia, and hydrocephalus are often seen in each of the Chiari I, II and III malformations. Patients with a Chiari II malformation almost always have a lumbar meningomyelocele.

Note that the definition of Chiari malformations may depend on the source you read. Adams & Victor (8th edition) defines the Chiari I and II as "the cerebellomedullary malformation without and with a meningomyelocele, respectively."

Thanks again to rednucleus for another good question.

REFERENCES:

1. Sklar, E.M.L., Ruiz, A., Quencer, R.M., and Falcone, S.F. (2004). Structural neuroimaging. In Bradley, W.G., Daroff, R.B., Fenichel, G.M., and Jankovic, J. (Eds.). Neurology in Clinical Practice, Fourth Edition. Butterworth Heinemann, Philadelphia, pp. 521-597 (ISBN:0750674695).

2. Sarnat, H.B., and Flores-Sarnat, L. (2004). Developmental disorders of the nervous system. In Bradley, W.G., Daroff, R.B., Fenichel, G.M., and Jankovic, J. (Eds.). Neurology in Clinical Practice, Fourth Edition. Butterworth Heinemann, Philadelphia, pp. 1763-1789 (ISBN:0750674695).

3. Rosenbaum, R.B., and Ciaverella, D.P. (2004). Disorders of bones, joints, ligaments, and meninges. In Bradley, W.G., Daroff, R.B., Fenichel, G.M., and Jankovic, J. (Eds.). Neurology in Clinical Practice, Fourth Edition. Butterworth Heinemann, Philadelphia, pp. 2189-2222 (ISBN:0750674695).

4. Victor, M., and Ropper, A.H. (2005). Adams and Victor's Principles of Neurology, 8th Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York. P. 861. (ISBN:007141620X)


 
Please log in if you'd like to add a comment.