Cerebrospinal fluid pressure dynamics as a biomechanical marker for quantification of spinal cord compression: Conceptual framework and systematic review of clinical trials

IF 1.9 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Najmeh Kheram , Madeleine A. Bessen , Claire F. Jones , Benjamin M. Davies , Mark Kotter , Mazda Farshad , Markus Hupp , Daniel Nanz , Patrick Freund , Martin Schubert , Vartan Kurtcuoglu , Armin Curt , Carl M. Zipser
{"title":"Cerebrospinal fluid pressure dynamics as a biomechanical marker for quantification of spinal cord compression: Conceptual framework and systematic review of clinical trials","authors":"Najmeh Kheram ,&nbsp;Madeleine A. Bessen ,&nbsp;Claire F. Jones ,&nbsp;Benjamin M. Davies ,&nbsp;Mark Kotter ,&nbsp;Mazda Farshad ,&nbsp;Markus Hupp ,&nbsp;Daniel Nanz ,&nbsp;Patrick Freund ,&nbsp;Martin Schubert ,&nbsp;Vartan Kurtcuoglu ,&nbsp;Armin Curt ,&nbsp;Carl M. Zipser","doi":"10.1016/j.bas.2025.104211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>In patients with acute spinal cord injury (SCI) and degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM), spinal cord compression is considered a main contributor to spinal cord damage, associated with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) space obstruction. CSF pressure (CSFP) dynamics are studied as a potential indirect biomechanical marker for spinal cord compression, and as a proxy to estimate spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP).</div></div><div><h3>Research question</h3><div>Evidence for safety and feasibility of CSFP dynamics in clinical trials as well as interrelations with neuroimaging and intraspinal pressure, and relation to preclinical CSFP models.</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>Systematic review. This review followed PRISMA guidelines, risk of bias assessment with ROBINS-I tool, PROSPERO registration (CRD42024545629).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>11 relevant papers were identified (n = 212 patients, n = 194 intraoperative, n = 18 bedside). Risk of bias for safety reporting was low-moderate. Intraoperative CSFP assessments were commonly performed in acute SCI. CSFP was assessed to calculate SCPP (7/11), to evaluate effects from surgical decompression (5/11) and for therapeutic CSF drainage (3/11). The adverse event rate associated with the intrathecal catheter was 8% (n = 15/194).</div></div><div><h3>Discussion and conclusion</h3><div>The preliminary safety and feasibility profile of CSFP assessments in spinal cord compression encourages clinical application. However, a deeper risk-benefit analysis is limited as the clinical value is not yet determined, given challenges of defining disease specific critical CSFP and SCPP thresholds. The interrelation between measures of CSFP and neuroimaging is yet to be proven. Targeted preclinical studies are essential to improve our understanding of complex CSFP-cord compression interrelations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72443,"journal":{"name":"Brain & spine","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 104211"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain & spine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277252942500030X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

In patients with acute spinal cord injury (SCI) and degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM), spinal cord compression is considered a main contributor to spinal cord damage, associated with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) space obstruction. CSF pressure (CSFP) dynamics are studied as a potential indirect biomechanical marker for spinal cord compression, and as a proxy to estimate spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP).

Research question

Evidence for safety and feasibility of CSFP dynamics in clinical trials as well as interrelations with neuroimaging and intraspinal pressure, and relation to preclinical CSFP models.

Material and methods

Systematic review. This review followed PRISMA guidelines, risk of bias assessment with ROBINS-I tool, PROSPERO registration (CRD42024545629).

Results

11 relevant papers were identified (n = 212 patients, n = 194 intraoperative, n = 18 bedside). Risk of bias for safety reporting was low-moderate. Intraoperative CSFP assessments were commonly performed in acute SCI. CSFP was assessed to calculate SCPP (7/11), to evaluate effects from surgical decompression (5/11) and for therapeutic CSF drainage (3/11). The adverse event rate associated with the intrathecal catheter was 8% (n = 15/194).

Discussion and conclusion

The preliminary safety and feasibility profile of CSFP assessments in spinal cord compression encourages clinical application. However, a deeper risk-benefit analysis is limited as the clinical value is not yet determined, given challenges of defining disease specific critical CSFP and SCPP thresholds. The interrelation between measures of CSFP and neuroimaging is yet to be proven. Targeted preclinical studies are essential to improve our understanding of complex CSFP-cord compression interrelations.
脑脊液压力动力学作为量化脊髓压迫的生物力学标记:概念框架和临床试验的系统回顾
在急性脊髓损伤(SCI)和退行性颈椎病(DCM)患者中,脊髓压迫被认为是脊髓损伤的主要原因,并与脑脊液(CSF)间隙阻塞有关。脑脊液压力(CSF pressure, CSFP)动力学作为脊髓受压的潜在间接生物力学指标,并作为估计脊髓灌注压力(SCPP)的代理。研究问题:CSFP动力学在临床试验中的安全性和可行性的证据,以及与神经影像学和椎管内压的相互关系,以及与临床前CSFP模型的关系。材料与方法系统综述。本综述遵循PRISMA指南,使用ROBINS-I工具进行偏倚风险评估,PROSPERO注册(CRD42024545629)。结果共纳入相关文献11篇(212例,术中194例,床边18例)。安全性报道的偏倚风险为中低。术中CSFP评估通常用于急性脊髓损伤。评估CSF fp以计算SCPP(7/11),评估手术减压(5/11)和治疗性CSF引流(3/11)的效果。鞘内导管相关不良事件发生率为8% (n = 15/194)。讨论与结论CSFP评估在脊髓压迫中的初步安全性和可行性,鼓励临床应用。然而,更深入的风险-收益分析是有限的,因为临床价值尚未确定,考虑到定义疾病特异性关键ccsf和SCPP阈值的挑战。测量ccsf和神经影像学之间的相互关系还有待证实。有针对性的临床前研究对于提高我们对复杂的csfp -脊髓压迫相互关系的理解至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Brain & spine
Brain & spine Surgery
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
71 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信