Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35321496›Full record

ArticleJFMS open reports

Recovery after inadvertent intramedullary microchip implantation at C1-C2 in a kitten.

Nina Schneider, Andreas Blutke, Birgit Parzefall

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in JFMS open reports. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nina SchneiderNeurology Department, Small Animal Clinic Oberhaching, Oberhaching, Germany.
Andreas BlutkeInstitute for Experimental Genetics, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Neuherberg, Germany.
Birgit ParzefallNeurology Department, Small Animal Clinic Oberhaching, Oberhaching, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2154-5993

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Case summary: A 15-week-old male British Shorthair cat was presented for peracute paralysis immediately after microchip implantation. Neurological examination revealed a non-ambulatory tetraparesis and left thoracic limb plegia localised to C1-C5 spinal cord segments. CT of the cervical spine showed a diagonally orientated metallic foreign body (microchip transponder, 10 mm in length) within the vertebral canal at the level of C1-C2, resulting in a penetrating spinal cord injury. Based on concerns about further iatrogenic spinal cord injury through surgery, medical management was chosen. Despite the severe clinical signs, the kitten returned to ambulation within 6 days of the injury, with controlled urination and defecation. Continuous neurological improvement was seen for up to 6 weeks after the injury at which point a mild-to-moderate ambulatory tetraparesis and ataxia remained, with an overall good quality of life. Follow-up CT at the age of 13 months revealed a relative cranial displacement and rotation of the microchip towards the foramen magnum, while the cat's neurological status was unchanged. Relevance and novel information: This case demonstrated a cervical penetrating spinal cord injury in a growing cat caused by a microchip, which was successfully managed with medical treatment, suggesting that this might be an option for patients at risk of severe surgery-related complications or where owners reject surgery.

Indexed as

cervical spinemedicalpenetratingSpinal cord

Identifiers

PMID35321496
PMCPMC8935412

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.