Carl Moritz Zipser1,2, José Miguel Spirig3, José Aguirre4, Anna-Sophie Hofer5,6, Nikolai Pfender7,3, Markus Hupp7,3, Armin Curt7,3, Mazda Farshad3, Martin Schubert7,3. 1. Department of Neurology and Neurophysiology, Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland. carlmoritz.zipser@balgrist.ch. 2. Balgrist University Hospital, University Spine Center, Zurich, Switzerland. carlmoritz.zipser@balgrist.ch. 3. Balgrist University Hospital, University Spine Center, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Department of Anesthesiology, Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 6. Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 7. Department of Neurology and Neurophysiology, Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) leads to functional impairment by compression of the spinal cord and nerve roots. In DCM, the dynamics of cerebrospinal fluid pressure (CSFP) and intraspinal pressure (ISP), as well as spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP) remain not investigated yet. Recent technical advances have enabled investigation of these parameters in acute spinal cord injury (SCI). We aim to investigate the properties of CSFP/ISP and spinal cord hemodynamics during and after decompressive surgery in DCM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four patients with DCM were enrolled; during surgery and 24 h postoperative, ISP at level was measured in one patient, and CSFP was measured in two patients. In one patient, CSFP was recorded at bedside before surgery. RESULTS: All measurements were conducted without adverse events and were well tolerated. With CSFP analysis, post-decompression Queckenstedt's test was responsive in two patients (i.e., jugular vein compression resulted in an elevation of CSFP pressure). In the patient whose CSFP was tested at bedside, Queckenstedt's test was not responsive before decompression. Individual optimum SCPPs were calculated to be between 70 and 75 mmHg. CONCLUSION: ISP and CSFP can reflect spinal compression and sufficient decompression. A better understanding and systematic monitoring possibly lead to improved hemodynamic management and may allow early recognition of postoperative complications such as swelling and bleeding.
INTRODUCTION:Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) leads to functional impairment by compression of the spinal cord and nerve roots. In DCM, the dynamics of cerebrospinal fluid pressure (CSFP) and intraspinal pressure (ISP), as well as spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP) remain not investigated yet. Recent technical advances have enabled investigation of these parameters in acute spinal cord injury (SCI). We aim to investigate the properties of CSFP/ISP and spinal cord hemodynamics during and after decompressive surgery in DCM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four patients with DCM were enrolled; during surgery and 24 h postoperative, ISP at level was measured in one patient, and CSFP was measured in two patients. In one patient, CSFP was recorded at bedside before surgery. RESULTS: All measurements were conducted without adverse events and were well tolerated. With CSFP analysis, post-decompression Queckenstedt's test was responsive in two patients (i.e., jugular vein compression resulted in an elevation of CSFP pressure). In the patient whose CSFP was tested at bedside, Queckenstedt's test was not responsive before decompression. Individual optimum SCPPs were calculated to be between 70 and 75 mmHg. CONCLUSION: ISP and CSFP can reflect spinal compression and sufficient decompression. A better understanding and systematic monitoring possibly lead to improved hemodynamic management and may allow early recognition of postoperative complications such as swelling and bleeding.
Authors: Catherine R Jutzeler; Anett Ulrich; Barbara Huber; Jan Rosner; John L K Kramer; Armin Curt Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2017-04-07 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Hanwen Liu; Erin L MacMillian; Catherine R Jutzeler; Emil Ljungberg; Alex L MacKay; Shannon H Kolind; Burkhard Mädler; David K B Li; Marcel F Dvorak; Armin Curt; Cornelia Laule; John L K Kramer Journal: Neurology Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Michael G Fehlings; Lindsay Tetreault; Patrick C Hsieh; Vincent Traynelis; Michael Y Wang Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: Lindsay Tetreault; Christina L Goldstein; Paul Arnold; James Harrop; Alan Hilibrand; Aria Nouri; Michael G Fehlings Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Michael G Fehlings; Lindsay A Tetreault; Jefferson R Wilson; Andrea C Skelly Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Benjamin M Davies; M McHugh; A Elgheriani; Angelos G Kolias; Lindsay Tetreault; Peter J A Hutchinson; Michael G Fehlings; Mark R N Kotter Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Michael G Fehlings; Lindsay A Tetreault; Shekar Kurpad; Darrel S Brodke; Jefferson R Wilson; Justin S Smith; Paul M Arnold; Erika D Brodt; Joseph R Dettori Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2017-09-05