MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1508949130 · doi:10.3171/2008.10.spine08217

Intrathecal pressure monitoring and cerebrospinal fluid drainage in acute spinal cord injury: a prospective randomized trial

2009· article· en· W1508949130 on OpenAlexaff
Brian K. Kwon, Armin Curt, Lise Bélanger, Arlene Bernardo, Donna Chan, John A. Markez, Stephen Gorelik, Gerard P. Slobogean, Hamed Umedaly, Mitch Giffin, Michael A. Nikolakis, John Street, Michael Boyd, Scott Paquette, Charles G. Fisher, Marcel F. Dvorak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Spine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of AlbertaInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Spine Surgery Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaDecompressionSurgeryCerebrospinal fluid pressureLumbarSpinal cord injuryCatheterIntracranial pressureNauseaSpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT: Ischemia is an important factor in the pathophysiology of secondary damage after traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) and, in the setting of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair, can be the primary cause of paralysis. Lowering the intrathecal pressure (ITP) by draining CSF is routinely done in thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm surgery but has not been evaluated in the setting of acute traumatic SCI. Additionally, while much attention is directed toward maintaining an adequate mean arterial blood pressure (MABP) in the acute postinjury phase, little is known about what is happening to the ITP during this period when spinal cord perfusion pressure (MABP - ITP) is important. The objectives of this study were to: 1) evaluate the safety and feasibility of draining CSF to lower ITP after acute traumatic SCI; 2) evaluate changes in ITP before and after surgical decompression; and 3) measure neurological recovery in relation to the drainage of CSF. METHODS: Twenty-two patients seen within 48 hours of injury were prospectively randomized to a drainage or no-drainage treatment group. In all cases a lumbar intrathecal catheter was inserted for 72 hours. Acute complications of headache/nausea/vomiting, meningitis, or neurological deterioration were carefully monitored. Acute Spinal Cord Injury motor scores were documented at baseline and at 6 months postinjury. RESULTS: On insertion of the catheter, mean ITP was 13.8 +/- 1.3 mm Hg (+/- SD), and it increased to a mean peak of 21.7 +/- 1.5 mm Hg intraoperatively. The difference between the starting ITP on catheter insertion and the observed peak intrathecal pressure after decompression was, on average, an increase of 7.9 +/- 1.6 mm Hg (p < 0.0001, paired t-test). During the postoperative period, the peak recorded ITP in the patients randomized to the no-drainage group was 30.6 +/- 2.3 mm Hg, which was significantly higher than the peak intraoperative ITP (p = 0.0098). During the same period, the peak recorded ITP in patients randomized to receive drainage was 28.1 +/- 2.8 mm Hg, which was not statistically higher than the peak intraoperative ITP (p = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: The insertion of lumbar intrathecal catheters and the drainage of CSF were not associated with significant adverse events, although the cohort was small and only a limited amount of CSF was drained. Intraoperative decompression of the spinal cord results in an increase in the ITP measured caudal to the injury site. Increases in intrathecal pressure are additionally observed in the postoperative period. These increases in intrathecal pressure result in reduced spinal cord perfusion that will otherwise go undetected when measuring only the MABP. Characteristic changes in the observed intrathecal pressure waveform occur after surgical decompression, reflecting the restoration of CSF flow across the SCI site. As such, the waveform pattern may be used intraoperatively to determine if adequate decompression of the thecal sac has been accomplished.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations196
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery SpineSame topicAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesFrench-language works237,207