Temporal Characteristics of CSF-Venous Fistulas on Digital Subtraction Myelography.
Journal
AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology
ISSN: 1936-959X
Titre abrégé: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8003708
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2023
04 2023
Historique:
received:
15
11
2022
accepted:
06
02
2023
pmc-release:
01
04
2024
medline:
12
4
2023
pubmed:
10
3
2023
entrez:
9
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
CSF-venous fistula can be diagnosed with multiple myelographic techniques; however, no prior work has characterized the time to contrast opacification and the duration of visualization. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the temporal characteristics of CSF-venous fistula on digital subtraction myelography. We reviewed the digital subtraction myelography images of 26 patients with CSF-venous fistulas. We evaluated how long the CSF-venous fistula took to opacify after contrast reached the spinal level of interest and how long it remained opacified. Patient demographics, CSF-venous fistula treatment, brain MR imaging findings, CSF-venous fistula spinal level, and CSF-venous fistula laterality were recorded. Eight of the 26 CSF-venous fistulas were seen on both the upper- and lower-FOV digital subtraction myelography, for a total of 34 CSF-venous fistula views evaluated on digital subtraction myelography. The mean time to appearance was 9.1 seconds (range, 0-30 seconds). Twenty-two (84.6%) of the CSF-venous fistulas were on the right. The highest fistula level was C7, while the lowest was T13 (13 rib-bearing vertebral bodies). The most common CSF-venous fistula levels were T6 (4 patients) followed by T8, T10, and T11 (3 patients each). The mean age was 58.3 years (range, 31.7-87.6 years). Sixteen patients were women (61.5%). This is the first study to report the temporal characteristics of CSF-venous fistulas using digital subtraction myelography. We found that on average, the CSF-venous fistula appeared 9.1 seconds (range, 0-30 seconds) after intrathecal contrast reached the spinal level.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
CSF-venous fistula can be diagnosed with multiple myelographic techniques; however, no prior work has characterized the time to contrast opacification and the duration of visualization. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the temporal characteristics of CSF-venous fistula on digital subtraction myelography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We reviewed the digital subtraction myelography images of 26 patients with CSF-venous fistulas. We evaluated how long the CSF-venous fistula took to opacify after contrast reached the spinal level of interest and how long it remained opacified. Patient demographics, CSF-venous fistula treatment, brain MR imaging findings, CSF-venous fistula spinal level, and CSF-venous fistula laterality were recorded.
RESULTS
Eight of the 26 CSF-venous fistulas were seen on both the upper- and lower-FOV digital subtraction myelography, for a total of 34 CSF-venous fistula views evaluated on digital subtraction myelography. The mean time to appearance was 9.1 seconds (range, 0-30 seconds). Twenty-two (84.6%) of the CSF-venous fistulas were on the right. The highest fistula level was C7, while the lowest was T13 (13 rib-bearing vertebral bodies). The most common CSF-venous fistula levels were T6 (4 patients) followed by T8, T10, and T11 (3 patients each). The mean age was 58.3 years (range, 31.7-87.6 years). Sixteen patients were women (61.5%).
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first study to report the temporal characteristics of CSF-venous fistulas using digital subtraction myelography. We found that on average, the CSF-venous fistula appeared 9.1 seconds (range, 0-30 seconds) after intrathecal contrast reached the spinal level.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36894299
pii: ajnr.A7809
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A7809
pmc: PMC10084909
doi:
Types de publication
Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
492-495Informations de copyright
© 2023 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.
Références
JAMA Neurol. 2019 May 1;76(5):580-587
pubmed: 30776059
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2021 Jan;42(1):32-36
pubmed: 33122215
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2022 Aug;219(2):292-301
pubmed: 35261281
J Neurosurg Spine. 2016 Jun;24(6):960-4
pubmed: 26849709
Clin Neuroradiol. 2022 Jun;32(2):537-545
pubmed: 34292360
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2003 Sep;24(8):1711-4
pubmed: 13679297
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2020 May;41(5):938-940
pubmed: 32354709
Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2019 Nov;29(4):581-594
pubmed: 31677732
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2022 Oct;43(10):1544-1547
pubmed: 36137659
Neurology. 2014 Jul 29;83(5):472-3
pubmed: 24951475
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2020 Jan;41(1):21-28
pubmed: 31857327
Neurology. 2016 Aug 16;87(7):673-9
pubmed: 27440149
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2020 Sep;41(9):1754-1756
pubmed: 32675336
Magn Reson Imaging. 2010 Nov;28(9):1306-10
pubmed: 20685054
J Neurosurg Spine. 2019 Sep 13;:1-4
pubmed: 31518974
Diagn Interv Radiol. 2018 Jan-Feb;24(1):54-59
pubmed: 29217497
J Neurosurg Spine. 2015 Mar;22(3):324-31
pubmed: 25555057
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2021 May;42(5):986-992
pubmed: 33602750