4.1 Article

Intra-cranial hypertension and vision-threatening papilloedema caused by intradural spinal tumours: a case series of three

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02688697.2023.2263087

关键词

Spinal tumour; hydrocephalus; neuro-oncology; neuro-ophthalmology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spinal tumours rarely cause hydrocephalus, and they can also rarely cause papilloedema without ventriculomegaly. This can present a diagnostic challenge for physicians, resulting in diagnostic delay and mismanagement. This article describes three cases of isolated vision-threatening papilloedema caused by intradural spinal tumours. The different operative management and the severity of visual deterioration influenced the clinical course and patient outcomes. Preserving vision as a priority and considering spinal pathology as a possible cause of unexplained papilloedema are emphasized.
Spinal tumours infrequently cause hydrocephalus, on rare occasions, they can also cause papilloedema, in the absence of ventriculomegaly. When the latter occurs, they can be a diagnostic challenge for physicians. In the absence of limb neurology, much of the initial diagnostic effort is focused solely on intra-cranial causes. This can result in diagnostic delay, misdiagnosis and mistreatment.We describe three cases of intradural spinal tumours that presented with isolated vision-threatening papilloedema. We compare and contrast these patients who had similar presentations, but different management strategies. The different operative management of their spinal tumours, as well as the acuity of visual deterioration determined their respective clinical course and patient journeys. We emphasise the need to preserve vision as a priority, through emergency cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion if necessary. We remind our readers to 'think outside the box' in cases of unexplained papilloedema, and recognise spinal pathology as a possibility amongst the differentials.

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

4.1
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