Massive lumbar spine hematoma post-spinal tap.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar puncture is a well-known procedure. The indications for lumbar puncture vary among different medical and surgical disciplines, though obtaining a sample for cerebrospinal fluid analysis is the most common one. A normal coagulation profile is crucial prior to pursing the procedure. Occasionally, an urgent sample is needed to guide an appropriate treatment while the patient's coagulation status is suboptimum. In those specific critical situations, some may accept suboptimal correction owing to the urgency of the case. CASE DESCRIPTION: We report a case for a patient with Burkitt lymphoma who presented with mild neuroaxial symptoms. An urgent cerebrospinal fluid sample was required which was taken after correcting his platelets count to 53.4 × 109/L. He developed a massive multi-compartmental thoracolumbar hematoma with acute cauda equine syndrome requiring surgical intervention. Despite aggressive management, he remained permanently paraplegic with functional status that negatively affected his overall outcome. CONCLUSION: Lumbar puncture is a useful diagnostic and treatment tool. Although serious events are seldom, they can be detrimental. A precaution not to underestimate such events in practicing lumbar, especially in patients with suboptimum coagulation state. Image-guided procedure can be useful and should be considered in appropriately selected patients.

Primary or secondary decompressive craniectomy: different indication and outcome.

BACKGROUND: Intracranial hypertension can cause secondary damage after a traumatic brain injury. Aggressive medical management might not be sufficient to alleviate the increasing intracranial pressure (ICP), and decompressive craniectomy (DC) can be considered. Decompressive craniectomy can be divided into categories, according to the timing and rationale for performing the procedure: primary (done at the time of mass lesion evacuation) and secondary craniectomy (done to treat refractory ICP). Most studies analyze primary and secondary DC together. Our hypothesis is that these two groups are distinct and the aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the differences in order to better predict outcome after DC. METHODS: Seventy patients had DC over a period of four years at our center. They were divided into two groups based on the timing of the DC. Primary DC (44 patients) was done within 24 hours of the injury for mass lesion evacuation. Secondary DC (26 patients) was done after 24 hours and purely for the treatment of refractory ICP. Pre-op characteristics and post-op outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in the mechanism of injury, the pupil abnormalities and Marshall grade between primary and secondary DC. There was also a significant difference in outcome with primary DC showing 45.5% good outcome and 40.9% mortality and secondary DC showing 73.1% good outcome and 15.4% mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Primary and secondary DC have different indications and patients characteristics. Outcome prediction following DC should be adjusted according to the surgical indication.

Memory outcome after temporal lobe epilepsy surgery: corticoamygdalohippocampectomy versus selective amygdalohippocampectomy.

OBJECT: The aim of this study was to compare IQ and memory outcomes at the 1-year follow-up in patients with medically refractory mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE) due to hippocampal sclerosis. All patients were treated using a corticoamygdalohippocampectomy (CAH) or a selective amygdalohippocampectomy (SelAH). METHODS: The data of 256 patients who underwent surgery for MTLE were retrospectively evaluated. One hundred twenty-three patients underwent a CAH (63 [right side] and 60 [left side]), and 133 underwent an SelAH (61 [right side] and 72 [left side]). A comprehensive neuropsychological test battery was assessed before and 1 year after surgery, and the results were compared between the surgical procedures. Furthermore, seizure outcome was compared using the Engel classification scheme. RESULTS: At 1-year follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference between the surgical approaches with respect to seizure outcome. Overall, IQ scores showed improvement, but verbal IQ decreased after left SelAH. Verbal memory impairment was seen after left-sided resections especially in cases of SelAH, and nonverbal memory decreased after right-sided resection, especially for CAH. Left-sided resections produced some improvement in nonverbal memory. Older age at surgery, longer duration of seizures, greater seizure frequency before surgery, and poor seizure control after surgery were associated with poorer memory. CONCLUSIONS: Both CAH and SelAH can lead to several cognitive impairments depending on the side of the surgery. The authors suggest that the optimal type of surgical approach should be decided on a case-by-case basis.