Can Direct Spinal Cord Injury Occur Without Paresthesia? A Report of Delayed Spinal Cord Injury After Epidural Placement in an Awake Patient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: We discuss the etiology of a delayed spinal cord injury after epidural anesthesia without paresthesia. The description of such a case in an awake, adult patient who underwent a Whipple resection is provided. An epidural was performed at approximately the T8-9 interspace with the patient in the sitting position after 1 mg of midazolam was administered. On the first attempt, a dural puncture occurred. The patient did not report any paresthesia or pain. The needle was withdrawn and a second attempt was made one interspace lower. At this level, the epidural catheter was advanced into the epidural space uneventfully. Postoperatively, the patient suffered decreased motor function in the right leg. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed high signal intensity within the spinal cord, indicating cord edema compatible with direct needle trauma. An extradural fluid collection consistent with a hematoma was also noted. Although it may be impossible to confirm if the spinal cord injury was a result of direct needle trauma, hematoma, or a combination of needle trauma and hematoma, these events clearly raise the important question of whether an awake patient will always report paresthesia secondary to spinal cord trauma. IMPLICATIONS: This case reminds anesthesiologists that we should not simply assume paresthesia will always occur and be reported if a needle encroaches on the spinal cord even in an awake patient.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".