J Yeo1, S Cheng2, S Hemley3, B B Lee1,4,5, M Stoodley3, L Bilston1,5. 1. From Neuroscience Research Australia (J.Y., B.B.L., L.B.), Randwick, New South Wales, Australia. 2. Department of Engineering (S.C.), Faculty of Science and Engineering shaokoon.cheng@mq.edu.au. 3. Australian School of Advance Medicine (S.H., M.S.), Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 4. Prince of Wales Hospital (B.B.L.), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 5. Prince of Wales Clinical School (B.B.L., L.B.), University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The development of syringomyelia has been associated with changes in CSF flow dynamics in the spinal subarachnoid space. However, differences in CSF flow velocity between patients with posttraumatic syringomyelia and healthy participants remains unclear. The aim of this work was to define differences in CSF flow above and below a syrinx in participants with posttraumatic syringomyelia and compare the CSF flow with that in healthy controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six participants with posttraumatic syringomyelia were recruited for this study. Phase-contrast MR imaging was used to measure CSF flow velocity at the base of the skull and above and below the syrinx. Velocity magnitudes and temporal features of the CSF velocity profile were compared with those in healthy controls. RESULTS: CSF flow velocity in the spinal subarachnoid space of participants with syringomyelia was similar at different locations despite differences in syrinx size and locations. Peak cranial and caudal velocities above and below the syrinx were not significantly different (peak cranial velocity, P = .9; peak caudal velocity, P = 1.0), but the peak velocities were significantly lower (P < .001, P = .007) in the participants with syringomyelia compared with matched controls. Most notably, the duration of caudal flow was significantly shorter (P = .003) in the participants with syringomyelia. CONCLUSIONS: CSF flow within the posttraumatic syringomyelia group was relatively uniform along the spinal canal, but there are differences in the timing of CSF flow compared with that in matched healthy controls. This finding supports the hypothesis that syrinx development may be associated with temporal changes in spinal CSF flow.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The development of syringomyelia has been associated with changes in CSF flow dynamics in the spinal subarachnoid space. However, differences in CSF flow velocity between patients with posttraumatic syringomyelia and healthy participants remains unclear. The aim of this work was to define differences in CSF flow above and below a syrinx in participants with posttraumatic syringomyelia and compare the CSF flow with that in healthy controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six participants with posttraumatic syringomyelia were recruited for this study. Phase-contrast MR imaging was used to measure CSF flow velocity at the base of the skull and above and below the syrinx. Velocity magnitudes and temporal features of the CSF velocity profile were compared with those in healthy controls. RESULTS:CSF flow velocity in the spinal subarachnoid space of participants with syringomyelia was similar at different locations despite differences in syrinx size and locations. Peak cranial and caudal velocities above and below the syrinx were not significantly different (peak cranial velocity, P = .9; peak caudal velocity, P = 1.0), but the peak velocities were significantly lower (P < .001, P = .007) in the participants with syringomyelia compared with matched controls. Most notably, the duration of caudal flow was significantly shorter (P = .003) in the participants with syringomyelia. CONCLUSIONS:CSF flow within the posttraumatic syringomyelia group was relatively uniform along the spinal canal, but there are differences in the timing of CSF flow compared with that in matched healthy controls. This finding supports the hypothesis that syrinx development may be associated with temporal changes in spinal CSF flow.
Authors: Lynne E Bilston; David F Fletcher; Andrew R Brodbelt; Marcus A Stoodley Journal: Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 1.763
Authors: Soroush Heidari Pahlavian; Alexander C Bunck; Francis Loth; R Shane Tubbs; Theresia Yiallourou; Jan Robert Kroeger; Walter Heindel; Bryn A Martin Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2015-02-20 Impact factor: 2.097
Authors: Shaokoon Cheng; Marcus A Stoodley; Johnny Wong; Sarah Hemley; David F Fletcher; Lynne E Bilston Journal: J Biomech Date: 2012-03-03 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Einar Heiberg; Jane Sjögren; Martin Ugander; Marcus Carlsson; Henrik Engblom; Håkan Arheden Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2010-01-11 Impact factor: 1.930
Authors: Mohammadreza Khani; Lucas R Sass; Tao Xing; M Keith Sharp; Olivier Balédent; Bryn A Martin Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 2.097
Authors: Mohammadreza Khani; Braden J Lawrence; Lucas R Sass; Christina P Gibbs; Joshua J Pluid; John N Oshinski; Gregory R Stewart; Jillynne R Zeller; Bryn A Martin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: David McKean; Umme Sara Zishan; Sarah Billingsley; Shyam S Swarna; Cormac O'Neill; Monika Banerjee; Safa Siddiqi; Joseph Papanikitas; Sarah Yanny; Richard Hughes; Tom Meagher Journal: Spinal Cord Ser Cases Date: 2019-07-09
Authors: Gwendolyn Williams; Suraj Thyagaraj; Audrey Fu; John Oshinski; Daniel Giese; Alexander C Bunck; Eleonora Fornari; Francesco Santini; Mark Luciano; Francis Loth; Bryn A Martin Journal: Fluids Barriers CNS Date: 2021-03-18