ArticleSpinal cord series and cases2022
Fibrocartilaginous embolism of the posterior spinal artery: A case report regarding the responsible intervertebral disc on magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in Spinal cord series and cases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fibrocartilaginous embolism after mountain cycling: a case report with clinical and radiological follow-up and almost complete recovery.BMJ neurology open · 2024Article
- The utility of diffusion-weighted imaging in patients with spinal cord infarction: difference from the findings of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder.BMC neurology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFibrocartilaginous embolism (FCE) of the spinal cord is an ischemic myelopathy caused by rupture of the intervertebral disc and subsequent entrance of the nucleus polposus material into the nearby vasculature. However, responsible disc lesions frequently cannot be determined, which may cause diagnostic difficulty. CASE PRESENTATION: A 63-year-old man suddenly felt a strange sensation in the lower limbs and noticed that he could not walk. The patient was brought to our hospital, where he was hospitalized. On neurological examination, his proprioception and vibratory sense were disturbed in the lower limbs. Spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a hyperintense cord lesion located at the C4-5 vertebral level of the posterior spinal artery region on diffusion-weighted sequence. He was diagnosed as having spinal cord infarction and treated with antiplatelet medication. Follow-up MRI was performed 5 days later, which displayed a collapsed C3/4 disc and a defected C4 vertebral body that were not evident on earlier MRI. These findings suggested the disc lesion was active and responsible for the infarction, leading to the diagnosis of FCE. The patient gradually improved and had no gait difficulty at the time of discharge. DISCUSSION: In the presented case, MRI did not reveal the responsible disc lesion when the diagnosis of spinal cord infarction was made; however, it became evident 5 days later. Although such a disc signal change within several days has not been described as a clue suggesting FCE, follow-up MRI with a relatively short interval may elucidate the responsible lesion and correct diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.