Spinal cord compression from intrathecal catheter-tip inflammatory mass: case report and a review of etiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The majority of intrathecal pumps are implanted by anesthesiologists. Despite a recent increase in case reports involving intrathecal catheter-tip inflammatory masses, this complication is rarely reported in the anesthesiology literature. The present case report describes a patient with spinal cord compression as a result of an inflammatory mass and reviews the current literature as to the etiology of inflammatory mass formation. CASE REPORT: A 47-year-old man with intractable neck and arm pain received an intrathecal pump implantation in 2001, at a stable dose of morphine 8 mg and clonidine 40 microg/d. After an injury in late 2001, his dose requirement for intrathecal morphine steadily increased. In May 2002, hydromorphone was substituted for morphine. The concentrations of hydromorphone and clonidine were 12.5 mg/mL and 150 microg/mL, respectively, infusing at 0.3 mL/d. In October 2003, he developed progressive T9 paraparesis. A computed tomography scan with myelogram showed complete blockage of contrast flow at T8-9. Surgical exploration found an intradural-extramedullary mass compressing the spinal cord anteriorly and to the left. Four weeks after surgical removal of the mass, the patient's neurologic function had improved minimally. All the microbiological analyses were negative. Review of the current literature suggests that the development of an inflammatory mass is related to the delivery of the high dose opioids in the intrathecal space. CONCLUSION: Delivery of high-dose intrathecal opioids can result in the formation of an inflammatory mass, leading to poor pain control and neurologic complications. Anesthesiologists should be vigilant as to these complications when managing patients receiving intrathecal pump therapy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".