Rare case of double migration of thoracic intradural schwannoma.

Mobile or migratory intradural extramedullary schwannoma have been reported many times in the lumbar levels, however only twice in cervical spine and six times in thoracic spine. Double migration was reported only once. The exact cause of the migration of a schwannoma arising from the nerve sheath of a spinal nerve root is unclear and especially mysterious in cervical and thoracic spine. We report a 49 year old male who presented with multiple sclerosis confirmed on brain MRI and CSF showing oligoclonal bands, with concomitant spinal myelopathy from a thoracic intradural extramedullary lesion. Serial MRIs showed rostral migration of lesion initially from T10 level to T6 and then caudally to T9 level on day of surgery. Intra operatively it was mobile with respirations and disconnected from any neural or vascular attachments. Histopathology confirmed a benign schwannoma with areas of necrosis. This is the rare occurrence of double migration of thoracic intradural schwannoma with possibility of tumor disconnection due to high dose steroid therapy for multiple sclerosis.

Paediatric mild head injury: is routine admission to a tertiary trauma hospital necessary?

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that children with isolated linear skull fractures have excellent clinical outcomes and low risk of surgery. We wish to identify other injury patterns within the spectrum of paediatric mild head injury, which need only conservative management. Children with low risk of evolving neurosurgical lesions could be safely managed in primary hospitals. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed all children with mild head injury (i.e. admission Glasgow coma score 13-15) and skull fracture or haematoma on a head computed tomography scan admitted to Westmead Children's Hospital, Sydney over the years 2009-2014. Data were collected regarding demographics, clinical findings, mechanism of injury, head computed tomography scan findings, neurosurgical intervention, outcome and length of admission. Wilcoxon paired test was used with P value <0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: Four hundred and ten children were analysed. Three hundred and eighty-one (93%) children were managed conservatively, 18 (4%) underwent evacuation of extradural haematoma (TBI surgery) and 11 (3%) needed fracture repair surgery. Two children evolved a surgical lesion 24 h post-admission. Only 17 of 214 children transferred from peripheral hospitals needed neurosurgery. Overall outcomes: zero deaths, one needed brain injury rehabilitation and 63 needed child protection unit intervention. Seventy-five percentage of children with non-surgical lesions were discharged within 2 days. Eighty-three percentage of road transfers were discharged within 3 days. CONCLUSIONS: Children with small intracranial haematomas and/or skull fractures who need no surgery only require brief inpatient symptomatic treatment and could be safely managed in primary hospitals. Improved tertiary hospital transfer guidelines with protocols to manage clinical deterioration could have cost benefit without risking patient safety.

Polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies for treating acute rejection episodes in kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Registry data shows that the incidence of acute rejection has been steadily falling. Approximately 10% to 35% of kidney recipients will undergo treatment for at least one episode of acute rejection within the first post-transplant year. Treatment options include pulsed steroid therapy, the use of an antibody preparation, the alteration of background immunosuppression, or combinations of these options. Over recent years, new treatment strategies have evolved, and in many parts of the world there has been an increase in use of tacrolimus and mycophenolate and a reduction in the use of cyclosporin and azathioprine use as baseline immunosuppression to prevent acute rejection. There are also global variations in use of polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies to treat acute rejection. This is an update of a review published in 2006. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to: (1) to evaluate the relative and absolute effects of different classes of antibody preparation in preventing graft loss and resolving cellular or humoral rejection episodes when used as a treatment for first episode of rejection in kidney transplant recipients; (2) evaluate the relative and absolute effects of different classes of antibody preparation in preventing graft loss and resolving cellular or humoral rejection episodes when used as a treatment for steroid-resistant rejection in kidney transplant recipients; (3) determine how the benefits and adverse events vary for each type of antibody preparation; and (4) determine how the benefits and harms vary for different formulations of antibody within each type. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 18 April 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in all languages comparing all mono- and polyclonal antibody preparations, given in combination with any other immunosuppressive agents, for the treatment of cellular or humoral graft rejection, when compared to any other treatment for acute rejection were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of the included studies and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using a random-effects model and results expressed as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 new studies (18 reports, 346 participants) in this update, bring the total number of included studies to 31 (76 reports, 1680 participants). Studies were generally small, incompletely reported, especially for potential harms, and did not define outcome measures adequately. The risk of bias was inadequate or unclear risk for random sequence generation (81%), allocation concealment (87%) and other bias (87%). There were, however, a predominance of low risk of bias for blinding (75%) and incomplete outcome data (80%) across all the studies. Selective reporting had a mixture of low (58%), high (29%), and unclear (13%) risk of bias.Seventeen studies (1005 participants) compared therapies for first acute cellular rejection episodes. Antibody therapy was probably better than steroid in reversing acute cellular rejection (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.82; moderate certainty) and preventing subsequent rejection (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99; moderate certainty), may be better for preventing graft loss (death censored: (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.12; low certainty) but there was little or no difference in death at one year. Adverse effects of treatment (including fever, chills and malaise following drug administration) were probably reduced with steroid therapy (RR 23.88, 95% CI 5.10 to 111.86; I2 = 16%; moderate certainty).Twelve studies (576 patients) investigated antibody treatment for steroid-resistant rejection. There was little or no benefit of muromonab-CD3 over ATG or ALG in reversing rejection, preventing subsequent rejection, or preventing graft loss or death. Two studies compared the use of rituximab for treatment of acute humoral rejection (58 patients). Muromonab-CD3 treated patients suffered three times more than those receiving either ATG or T10B9, from a syndrome of fever, chills and malaise following drug administration (RR 3.12, 95% CI 1.87 to 5.21; I2 = 31%), and experienced more neurological side effects (RR 13.10 95% CI 1.43 to 120.05; I2 = 36%) (low certainty evidence).There was no evidence of additional benefit from rituximab in terms of either reversal of rejection (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.64), or graft loss or death 12 months (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.23 to 4.35). Rituximab plus steroids probably increases the risk of urinary tract infection/pyelonephritis (RR 5.73, 95% CI 1.80 to 18.21). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In reversing first acute cellular rejection and preventing graft loss, any antibody is probably better than steroid, but there is little or no difference in subsequent rejection and patient survival. In reversing steroid-resistant rejection there was little or no difference between different antibodies over a period of 12 months, with limited data beyond that time frame. In treating acute humoral rejection, there was no evidence that the use of antibody therapy conferred additional benefit in terms of reversal of rejection, or death or graft loss.Although this is an updated review, the majority of newer included studies provide additional evidence from the cyclosporin/azathioprine era of kidney transplantation and therefore conclusions cannot necessarily be extrapolated to patients treated with more contemporary immunosuppressive regimens which include tacrolimus/mycophenolate or sirolimus. However, many kidney transplant centres around the world continue to use older immunosuppressive regimes and the findings of this review remain strongly relevant to their clinical practice.Larger studies with standardised reproducible outcome criteria are needed to investigate the outcomes and risks of antibody treatments for acute rejection in kidney transplant recipients receiving contemporary immunosuppressive regimes.