Rethinking lumbar puncture safety: pathophysiology, diagnostic uncertainty, and research gaps in herniation risk.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Viktor Procházka, Petr Skalický, Laura Banovčanová, Adéla Bubeníková, Vojtěch Novák, Róbert Leško, Vladimír Beneš IIIrd, Ondřej Bradáč
{"title":"Rethinking lumbar puncture safety: pathophysiology, diagnostic uncertainty, and research gaps in herniation risk.","authors":"Viktor Procházka, Petr Skalický, Laura Banovčanová, Adéla Bubeníková, Vojtěch Novák, Róbert Leško, Vladimír Beneš IIIrd, Ondřej Bradáč","doi":"10.1007/s13760-025-02866-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lumbar puncture (LP) is a key diagnostic and therapeutic tool, yet concerns persist about its potential to induce brain herniation, especially in patients with elevated intracranial pressure (ICP). Despite ongoing debate, precise risk factors and pathophysiological mechanisms remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review aims to examine the risk of cerebellar and paradoxical brain herniation following LP, evaluate the current evidence regarding its incidence, and discuss the implications for clinical practice as well as show the gaps in research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature review was conducted using the PubMed (MEDLINE) database. Studies from 1990 to 2024 focusing on bacterial meningitis, idiopathic intracranial hypertension, post-surgical states, and other conditions associated with elevated ICP were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>LP-related herniation was reported in diverse clinical settings, with cerebellar herniation primarily seen in bacterial meningitis and idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Herniation onset varied from minutes to days post-LP. While cranial CT is widely used for risk assessment, its predictive accuracy is debated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although LP is relatively safe, herniation risk is highly context-dependent. Clinicians should integrate clinical, radiological, and pathophysiological factors in decision-making. Further research is needed to refine predictive models and establish evidence-based guidelines for high-risk patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":7042,"journal":{"name":"Acta neurologica Belgica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta neurologica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13760-025-02866-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Lumbar puncture (LP) is a key diagnostic and therapeutic tool, yet concerns persist about its potential to induce brain herniation, especially in patients with elevated intracranial pressure (ICP). Despite ongoing debate, precise risk factors and pathophysiological mechanisms remain unclear.

Objective: This systematic review aims to examine the risk of cerebellar and paradoxical brain herniation following LP, evaluate the current evidence regarding its incidence, and discuss the implications for clinical practice as well as show the gaps in research.

Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature review was conducted using the PubMed (MEDLINE) database. Studies from 1990 to 2024 focusing on bacterial meningitis, idiopathic intracranial hypertension, post-surgical states, and other conditions associated with elevated ICP were included.

Results: LP-related herniation was reported in diverse clinical settings, with cerebellar herniation primarily seen in bacterial meningitis and idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Herniation onset varied from minutes to days post-LP. While cranial CT is widely used for risk assessment, its predictive accuracy is debated.

Conclusions: Although LP is relatively safe, herniation risk is highly context-dependent. Clinicians should integrate clinical, radiological, and pathophysiological factors in decision-making. Further research is needed to refine predictive models and establish evidence-based guidelines for high-risk patients.

重新思考腰椎穿刺安全性:病理生理学,诊断的不确定性,和研究空白的风险突出。
背景:腰椎穿刺(LP)是一种关键的诊断和治疗工具,但人们一直担心它可能诱发脑疝,特别是在颅内压(ICP)升高的患者中。尽管争论不断,但确切的危险因素和病理生理机制仍不清楚。目的:本系统综述旨在检查LP后小脑和悖论性脑疝的风险,评估其发病率的现有证据,讨论临床实践的意义,并显示研究中的空白。方法:遵循PRISMA指南,使用PubMed (MEDLINE)数据库进行系统的文献综述。1990年至2024年的研究重点是细菌性脑膜炎、特发性颅内高压、术后状态和其他与ICP升高相关的疾病。结果:lp相关的疝在不同的临床环境中都有报道,小脑疝主要见于细菌性脑膜炎和特发性颅内高压。lp后疝的发作时间从几分钟到几天不等。尽管颅CT广泛用于风险评估,但其预测准确性仍存在争议。结论:尽管LP相对安全,但疝出风险高度依赖于环境。临床医生在决策时应综合考虑临床、放射学和病理生理因素。需要进一步的研究来完善预测模型并为高危患者建立循证指南。
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
Acta neurologica Belgica
Acta neurologica Belgica 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
300
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Peer-reviewed and published quarterly, Acta Neurologica Belgicapresents original articles in the clinical and basic neurosciences, and also reports the proceedings and the abstracts of the scientific meetings of the different partner societies. The contents include commentaries, editorials, review articles, case reports, neuro-images of interest, book reviews and letters to the editor. Acta Neurologica Belgica is the official journal of the following national societies: Belgian Neurological Society Belgian Society for Neuroscience Belgian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology Belgian Pediatric Neurology Society Belgian Study Group of Multiple Sclerosis Belgian Stroke Council Belgian Headache Society Belgian Study Group of Neuropathology
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信