Abducens Nerve Palsy Associated With Pseudomeningocele After Lumbar Disc Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Clinical case report and review of the literature. OBJECTIVE: To highlight the importance of including cerebrospinal fluid leak and pseudomeningocele in the differential diagnosis in a patient presenting with diplopia due to abducens palsy after spine surgery and to highlight the possibility of cure after successful surgical repair of the dural defect. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Abducens nerve palsy after spine surgery is extremely rare, with only 3 reported cases in the literature. We report the first case of abducens nerve palsy associated with a clinically evident pseudomeningocele, which was completely cured by successful repair of the dural defect. METHODS: A 53-year-old male patient with diabetes presented 6 weeks after lumbar disc surgery with persistent headache, a fluctuant swelling at the operated site, and diplopia secondary to left abducens nerve palsy. Clinical examination revealed a left abducens nerve palsy and magnetic resonance imaging showed a pseudomeningocele due to dural tear at L4-L5. He underwent exploration, and the dural defect was repaired using 6-0 Vicryl and reinforced with a fibrin sealant. RESULTS: After dural closure, pseudomeningocele and headache resolved completely and diplopia improved partially. At 4-week follow-up, there was complete resolution of diplopia. Clinical examination showed full recovery of the lateral rectus function, indicating resolution of the abducens palsy. Magnetic resonance imaging showed complete resolution of pseudomeningocele. CONCLUSION: Although uncommon, abducens nerve palsy after cerebrospinal fluid leak should be considered in the differential diagnosis of diplopia developing in a patient who has undergone spine surgery. After confirmation of pseudomeningocele radiologically, early surgical intervention with repair of the dural defect can result in complete recovery of the abducens nerve palsy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".