īoth posturing types are stereotypical however, they can be present in varying degrees and even asymmetrically with decorticate on one side and decerebrate contralaterally. An inconsistent presentation of a given posture tends to suggest a lesser degree of injury. However, this concept has been criticized as lesions in the supratentorial region can also cause both decorticate and decerebrate posturing, though the brainstem is typically involved. Typically, the anatomical divide associated with decorticate and decerebrate posturing is the intercollicular line at the level of the red nucleus. In most literature, this level is considered the red nucleus at the intercollicular level of the midbrain. It is, however, accepted that decorticate typically requires an injury more rostral than decerebrate posturing. Brain lesions of several anatomical regions may cause both postures, though they do usually involve some degree of brainstem injury. There is a criticism within the literature of the use of the terms decorticate and decerebrate posturing in clinical contexts due to their association with discrete anatomical locations that, in reality, may not be so prescriptive. Synonymous terms for decerebrate posturing include abnormal extension, decerebrate rigidity, extensor posturing, or decerebrate response. Synonymous terms for decorticate posturing include abnormal flexion, decorticate rigidity, flexor posturing, or decorticate response. The Nobel Laurette Charles Sherrington first described decerebrate posturing in 1898 after transecting the brainstems of live monkeys and cats. Decorticate and decerebrate posturing are both considered pathological posturing responses to usually noxious stimuli from an external or internal source. Both involve stereotypical movements of the trunk and extremities and are typically indicative of significant brain or spinal injury.
0 kommentar(er)
