4.6 Article

Postoperative spinal cord ischaemia: magnetic resonance imaging and clinical features

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY
卷 60, 期 1, 页码 164-174

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezaa476

关键词

Ischaemic spinal cord injury; Thoraco-abdominal aneurysm; Postoperative; Aortic dissection; Magnetic resonance imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that MRI plays an important role in evaluating ischemic spinal cord injury after cardiovascular surgery and aortic events, clearly showing the sites of infarction. MRI can help reveal etiology and analyze infarction patterns in different cases.
OBJECTIVES: Ischaemic spinal cord injury (SCI) is one of the most serious complications of aortic surgery. Ischaemic SCIs occur due to various aetiologies, and prediction of the risk is difficult. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is useful to detect the details of spinal cord infarction. There are few studies about MRI for evaluating ischaemic SCI after cardiovascular surgery and aortic events. We report 9 cases of postoperative ischaemic SCI and analyse their MRI features. METHODS: T2-weighted MRI scans of 9 patients who developed ischaemic SCI due to cardiovascular surgery and aortic events between 2012 and 2017 were evaluated. RESULTS: In all patients, high-intensity areas were observed on T2-weighted magnetic resonance images. The site of infarction was the thoracic spinal cord level (9 cases) and additionally at the lumbar spinal cord level (5 cases). The area of infarction area was categorized based on the arterial territory: anterior spinal artery territory (3 cases), posterior spinal artery territory (2 cases), spinal sulcal artery territory (1 case) and artery of Adamkiewicz territory (3 cases). CONCLUSIONS: MRI revealed the infarction sites in all cases and the differences in the infarction patterns in each case. MRI could thus be useful for investigating the aetiology of ischaemic SCI following aortic surgeries and events.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据