Abstract
We thank Drs Raininko and Bajic for their interest in our recent article and welcome the opportunity to clarify certain issues.[1][1] We would like to emphasize the distinction between the collection of 10 findings termed “hippocampal malrotation” (HIMAL) by Barsi et al[2][2] and the isolated
Highlights
We used the stricter criteria requiring all the elements to be present, whereas they accepted partial forms, which will clearly result in higher rates and may account for the frequency of bilateral findings, which are rare when stricter criteria are used.[1]
Given that there is still a debate about whether HIMAL represents a finding of pathologic significance, we believe that a strict definition is more appropriate because if HIMAL is of pathologic significance, the stricter criteria are more appropriate for identifying associated pathology
If HIMAL becomes established as a pathologic finding, expanding the spectrum to partial forms and clarifying whether they are associated with pathology will be the step
Summary
The differences between our lower reported rate in individuals without epilepsy and those of Bajic et al[5] may be due to the different criteria used.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
