R I Farb1, P J Nicholson2, P W Peng3, E M Massicotte4, C Lay5, T Krings2, K G terBrugge2. 1. From the Department of Medical Imaging, Division of Neuroradiology (R.I.F., P.J.N., T.K., K.G.t.B.) richard.farb@uhn.ca. 2. From the Department of Medical Imaging, Division of Neuroradiology (R.I.F., P.J.N., T.K., K.G.t.B.). 3. Department of Anesthesiology (P.W.P.). 4. Department of Surgery, and Division of Neurosurgery (E.M.M.), Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Department of Medicine and Division of Neurology, Women's College Hospital (C.L.) University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Localization of the culprit CSF leak in patients with spontaneous intracranial hypotension can be difficult and is inconsistently achieved. We present a high yield systematic imaging strategy using brain and spine MRI combined with digital subtraction myelography for CSF leak localization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During a 2-year period, patients with spontaneous intracranial hypotension at our institution underwent MR imaging to determine the presence or absence of a spinal longitudinal extradural collection. Digital subtraction myelography was then performed in patients positive for spinal longitudinal extradural CSF collection primarily in the prone position and in patients negative for spinal longitudinal extradural CSF collection in the lateral decubitus positions. RESULTS: Thirty-one consecutive patients with spontaneous intracranial hypotension were included. The site of CSF leakage was definitively located in 27 (87%). Of these, 21 were positive for spinal longitudinal extradural CSF collection and categorized as having a ventral (type 1, fifteen [48%]) or lateral dural tear (type 2; four [13%]). Ten patients were negative for spinal longitudinal extradural CSF collection and were categorized as having a CSF-venous fistula (type 3, seven [23%]) or distal nerve root sleeve leak (type 4, one [3%]). The locations of leakage of 2 patients positive for spinal longitudinal extradural CSF collection remain undefined due to resolution of spontaneous intracranial hypotension before repeat digital subtraction myelography. In 2 (7%) patients negative for spinal longitudinal extradural CSF collection, the site of leakage could not be localized. Nine of 21 (43%) patients positive for spinal longitudinal extradural CSF collection were treated successfully with an epidural blood patch, and 12 required an operation. Of the 10 patients negative for spinal longitudinal extradural CSF collection (8 localized), none were effectively treated with an epidural blood patch, and all have undergone (n = 7) or are awaiting (n = 1) an operation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients positive for spinal longitudinal extradural CSF collection are best positioned prone for digital subtraction myelography and may warrant additional attempts at a directed epidural blood patch. Patients negative for spinal longitudinal extradural CSF collection are best evaluated in the decubitus positions to reveal a CSF-venous fistula, common in this population. Patients with CSF-venous fistula may forgo further epidural blood patch treatment and go on to surgical repair.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Localization of the culprit CSF leak in patients with spontaneous intracranial hypotension can be difficult and is inconsistently achieved. We present a high yield systematic imaging strategy using brain and spine MRI combined with digital subtraction myelography for CSF leak localization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During a 2-year period, patients with spontaneous intracranial hypotension at our institution underwent MR imaging to determine the presence or absence of a spinal longitudinal extradural collection. Digital subtraction myelography was then performed in patients positive for spinal longitudinal extradural CSF collection primarily in the prone position and in patients negative for spinal longitudinal extradural CSF collection in the lateral decubitus positions. RESULTS: Thirty-one consecutive patients with spontaneous intracranial hypotension were included. The site of CSF leakage was definitively located in 27 (87%). Of these, 21 were positive for spinal longitudinal extradural CSF collection and categorized as having a ventral (type 1, fifteen [48%]) or lateral dural tear (type 2; four [13%]). Ten patients were negative for spinal longitudinal extradural CSF collection and were categorized as having a CSF-venous fistula (type 3, seven [23%]) or distal nerve root sleeve leak (type 4, one [3%]). The locations of leakage of 2 patients positive for spinal longitudinal extradural CSF collection remain undefined due to resolution of spontaneous intracranial hypotension before repeat digital subtraction myelography. In 2 (7%) patients negative for spinal longitudinal extradural CSF collection, the site of leakage could not be localized. Nine of 21 (43%) patients positive for spinal longitudinal extradural CSF collection were treated successfully with an epidural blood patch, and 12 required an operation. Of the 10 patients negative for spinal longitudinal extradural CSF collection (8 localized), none were effectively treated with an epidural blood patch, and all have undergone (n = 7) or are awaiting (n = 1) an operation. CONCLUSIONS:Patients positive for spinal longitudinal extradural CSF collection are best positioned prone for digital subtraction myelography and may warrant additional attempts at a directed epidural blood patch. Patients negative for spinal longitudinal extradural CSF collection are best evaluated in the decubitus positions to reveal a CSF-venous fistula, common in this population. Patients with CSF-venous fistula may forgo further epidural blood patch treatment and go on to surgical repair.
Authors: Kent R Thielen; John C Sillery; Jonathan M Morris; Joseph M Hoxworth; Felix E Diehn; John T Wald; Richard E Rosebrock; Lifeng Yu; Patrick H Luetmer Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2015-01-02
Authors: Peter G Kranz; Timothy J Amrhein; Kingshuk Roy Choudhury; Teerath Peter Tanpitukpongse; Linda Gray Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Wouter I Schievink; M Marcel Maya; Stacey Jean-Pierre; Miriam Nuño; Ravi S Prasad; Franklin G Moser Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-07-20 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: D K Kim; W Brinjikji; P P Morris; F E Diehn; V T Lehman; G B Liebo; J M Morris; J T Verdoorn; J K Cutsforth-Gregory; R I Farb; J C Benson; C M Carr Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-12-19 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: T Dobrocky; M Rebsamen; C Rummel; L Häni; P Mordasini; A Raabe; C T Ulrich; J Gralla; E I Piechowiak; J Beck Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Emanuele Cerulli Irelli; Alessandra Morano; Martina Fanella; Anna T Giallonardo; Carlo Di Bonaventura Journal: Acta Neurol Belg Date: 2020-05-04 Impact factor: 2.396
Authors: Ajay A Madhavan; Carrie M Carr; John C Benson; Waleed Brinjikji; Felix E Diehn; Dong Kun Kim; Vance T Lehman; Greta B Liebo; Pearse P Morris; Darya P Shlapak; Jared T Verdoorn; Jonathan M Morris Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 3.649