Postoperative Intraspinal Subdural Collections after Pediatric Posterior Fossa Tumor Resection: Incidence, Imaging, and Clinical Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Postoperative intraspinal subdural collections in children after posterior fossa tumor resection may temporarily hinder metastasis detection by MR imaging or CSF analysis, potentially impacting therapy. We investigated the incidence, imaging and clinical features, predisposing factors, and time course of these collections after posterior fossa tumor resection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of postoperative spine MRI in 243 children (5.5 ± 4.6 years of age) from our clinical data base postresection of posterior fossa tumors from October 1994 to August 2010 yielded 37 (6.0 ± 4.8 years of age) subjects positive for postoperative intraspinal subdural collections. Their extent and signal properties were recorded for postoperative (37/37), preoperative (15/37), and follow-up spine (35/37) MRI. Risk factors were compared with age-matched internal controls (n = 37, 5.9 ± 4.5 years of age). Associations of histology, hydrocephalus and cerebellar tonsillar herniation, and postoperative intracranial subdural collections with postoperative intraspinal subdural collections were assessed by the Fisher exact test or χ(2) test. The association between preoperative tumor volume and postoperative intraspinal subdural collections was assessed by the Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: The overall incidence of postoperative intraspinal subdural collections was 37/243 (15.2%), greatest ≤7 days postoperatively (36%); 97% were seen 0-41 days postoperatively (12.9 ± 11.0 days). They were T2 hyperintense and isointense to CSF on T1WI, homogeneously enhanced, and resolved on follow-up MR imaging (35/35). None were symptomatic. They were associated with intracranial subdural collections (P = .0011) and preoperative tonsillar herniation (P = .0228). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative intraspinal subdural collections are infrequent and clinically silent, resolve spontaneously, and have a distinctive appearance. Preoperative tonsillar herniation appears to be a predisposing factor. In this series, repeat MR imaging by 4 weeks documented improvement or resolution of these collections in 88%.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".