Lumbar epidural steroid injections (LESIs) are commonly used for managing lower back pain (LBP) and radicular pain. LESIs are generally considered safe with only rare serious complication. One very rare complication that is frequently cited in the literature is adhesive arachnoiditis. However, a literature search failed to detect even one published manuscript, clearly documenting LESI induced arachnoiditis. This article presents two patients who received a transforaminal L5–S1 and two L3–L4 interlaminar LESIs. Although the presented patients developed clear radiological (MRI) findings of arachnoiditis, they were not accompanied by any improvement or deterioration in their clinical condition. The article also reviews the literature on the prevalence, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and clinical features of adhesive arachnoiditis. Literature suggests that adhesive arachnoiditis following LESIs is a rare entity, which – as seen in our patients – has clear radiological characteristics but uncertain pathogenesis. It has a large spectrum of clinical presentation, ranging from an incidental finding to a serious neurological sequela. In at least some patients with adhesive arachnoiditis following LESI, the radiological and clinical findings may fail to correlate with each other. In light of the fact that LESI is one of the most commonly performed procedures for managing LBP, clinicians should be aware of this rare yet existing entity.
Up to 70% of limb amputees develop chronic postamputation neuropathic pain (CPANP) which includes phantom pain and residual limb neuropathic pain due to neuroma formation. CPANP often requires invasive procedures aimed at neuroma ablation. Five amputees received 6 noninvasive magnetic resonance‐guided high‐intensity‐focused ultrasound MRgHIFU treatments ExAblate®, Insightec, Tirat‐Carmel, Israel). Although ablative temperature (>65°C) at the neuroma was reached in only 1 patient, pain intensity dropped from 5.7 at baseline to 4.3 and back to 5.6 at 3 and 6 month follow‐up. Post‐treatment bone necrosis was demonstrated in 1 patient. Although no firm conclusion about the effectiveness of MRgHIFU for CPANP could be drawn, further studies are warranted.
Background It has long been an interesting question of whether withdrawal seizures in epileptic patients differ from habitual seizures in terms of semiology and electrophysiology. Case presentation Here, we addressed this issue in a 40 year-old woman with drug-resistant focal epilepsy monitored by presurgical intracranial EEG. As a part of this routine pre-operative investigation, anti-seizure medications (ASMs) were halted; as a result, multiple withdrawal seizures were recorded before ASM readministration. During 4 days of invasive monitoring, we noticed three different phases in seizure organization: Acute withdrawal seizure (AWS): The first recorded seizure 10h after the implantation; the stabilized withdrawal seizures (SWS): seven habitual seizures recorded from 24h post implantation to readministration of ASMs; and the Non-withdrawal seizures (NWS): ten seizures recorded 24h after readministration of ASMs. AWS and SWS had the same semiology and same epileptic network, but the propagation time from the temporal pole to the para-hippocampal gyrus (PHG) and hippocampus ranged from no latency in AWS to up to 50 s in SWS. NWS were electrographic seizures, without any apparent clinical manifestation. Seizure onset in this type of seizure, as in the first two types, was in the temporal pole. However, NWS could last up to 3 min without involving the PHG or hippocampus. Conclusions We concluded that in acute withdrawal seizures the propagation time of epileptic activity is significantly reduced without affecting ictal organization network or semiology. Furthermore, ASM in this case had a remarkable influence on propagation rather than initiation of epileptic activity.
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.