COVID-19 patients are increasingly understood to develop multisystem manifestations, including neurologic involvement. We report the case of a 42-year old COVID-19 positive patient with a fatal intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). The patient presented with fever and dyspnea, requiring intubation due to medical complications. After prolonged sedation and anticoagulation, the patient suddenly developed bilaterally fixed and dilated pupils, caused by a right-sided intracranial hemorrhage with uncal herniation. The course of this case illustrates the delicate balance between hypercoagulability and coagulation factor depletion; especially in the intubated and sedated patient, in whom regular neurological assessments are impeded. As we expand our understanding of the neurological ramifications of COVID-19, clinicians need to be increasingly aware of the precarious coagulation balance.
Background: Sellar arachnoid cysts (SACs) are rare lesions and incidentally found on brain imaging. The pathophysiology is poorly understood. Some authors suggested that SACs develop as a herniation of arachnoid membrane through the diaphragma sellae followed by cyst formation. Furthermore, Meyer et al. postulated that SACs are formed by splitting of the arachnoid layers. Symptomatic SACs present with headache, visual field deficit, or pituitary dysfunction. The data are limited on the indications and timing for intervention. We present a case of symptomatic SAC that was fenestrated using orbitofrontal approach. Case Description: A 64-year-old female presented with chronic headaches and blurriness of vision. She was previously diagnosed with diabetes insipidus (DI) that was treated with desmopressin, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of her brain at that time was normal. Later on, she developed severe headaches that were managed medically. A year later, she had an episode of generalized seizure that led to the discovery of SAC on brain MRI. On examination, she had a left-sided monocular temporal hemianopia. The patient underwent an orbitofrontal craniotomy for fenestration of the SAC. At 6-month follow-up, her headaches had significantly improved with the resolution of the visual deficit. In addition, the DI had resolved, and the desmopressin was discontinued. Conclusion: SACs are rare with no consensus on the indications for surgery. Our experience suggests that fenestration of SAC through transcranial approach is a valid option for patients with visual deficit and/or pituitary dysfunction.
BACKGROUND Acute subdural hematomas (aSDHs) occur in approximately 10% to 20% of all closed head injury and represent a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in traumatic brain injury patients. Conventional craniotomy is an invasive intervention with the potential for excess blood loss and prolonged postoperative recovery time. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the outcomes of minimally invasive endoscopy for evacuation of aSDHs in a pilot feasibility study. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed the records of consecutive patients with aSDHs who underwent surgical treatment at our institution with minimally invasive endoscopy using the Apollo/Artemis Neuro Evacuation Device (Penumbra, Alameda, California) between April 2015 and July 2018. RESULTS The study cohort comprised three patients. The Glasgow Coma Scale on admission was 15 for all 3 patients, median preoperative hematoma volume was 49.5 cm3 (range 44-67.8 cm3), median postoperative degree of hematoma evacuation was 88% (range 84%-89%), and median modified Rankin Scale at discharge was 1 (range 0-3). CONCLUSION Endoscopic evacuation of aSDHs can be a safe and effective alternative to craniotomy in appropriately selected patients. Further studies are needed to refine the selection criteria for endoscopic aSDH evacuation and evaluate its long-term outcomes.
Background: Vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) can be an effective therapy for patients with epilepsy refractory to antiepileptic drugs or intracranial surgery. While generally well tolerated, it has been associated with laryngospasm, hoarseness, coughing, dyspnea, throat and atypical chest pain, cardiac symptoms such as bradycardia and occasionally asystole. We report on a patient receiving vagal nerve stimulation who experienced severe typical anginal chest pain during VNS firing without any evidence of cardiac ischemia or dysfunction. Thus, the pain appeared to be neuropathic from the stimulation itself rather than nociceptive secondary to an effect on heart function. Case presentation: A 29-year-old man, with a history of intractable frontal lobe epilepsy refractory to seven antiepileptic medications and subsequent intracranial surgery, underwent VNS implantation without complications. On beginning stimulation, he began to have intermittent chest pain that corresponded temporally to his intermittent VNS firing. The description of his pain was pathognomonic of ischemic cardiac chest pain. On initial evaluation, he displayed Levine's sign and reported crushing substernal chest pain radiating to the left arm, as well as shortness of breath walking upstairs that improved with rest. He underwent an extensive cardiac workup, including 12-lead ECG, cardiac stress test, echocardiogram, 12-day ambulatory cardiac monitoring, and continuous ECG monitoring each with and without stimulation of his device. The workup was consistently negative. Inability to resolve the pain necessitated the disabling and eventual removal of the device. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first report of pseudoanginal chest pain associated with VNS. This occurrence prompted our review of the mechanisms of cardiac chest pain and suggests that vagal afferents may convey anginal pain separately or in parallel with known spinal cord pain mechanisms. These insights into the physiology of chest pain may be of general interest and important to surgeons implanting VNS devices who may potentially encounter such symptoms.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.