ArticleSurgical neurology international2022
Atypical radiographic case of arachnoid web without scalpel sign.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Arachnoid web presenting with acute myelopathy after minor trauma and subtle imaging findings: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2026Article
- Perspective/short review: Diagnosis and surgery for mostly dorsal thoracic spinal arachnoid webs with/ without Syrinxes and/or Spinal Arachnoid Cysts.Surgical neurology international · 2026Review
- Atypical presentation of arachnoid web causing paraparesis with absence of sensory symptoms.BMJ case reports · 2024Article
- Resection of an incidentally discovered spinal arachnoid web: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2024Article
- Diagnosis and Treatment Strategies for Arachnoiditis Ossificans Following Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Case Report.NMC case report journal · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Spinal arachnoid webs (SAW) occur when abnormally thickened bands of arachnoid membranes commonly located dorsal to the thoracic spine cause blockage of normal cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) flow, resulting in focal cord compression and myelopathy. The pathognomonic MR finding for SAW is the "positive scalpel sign" comprised of an enlarged dorsal CSF space with a normal ventral subarachnoid space. The main differential diagnostic consideration for SAW is idiopathic spinal cord herniation (ISCH); however, for ISCH, MR studies classically demonstrate ventral displacement of the spinal cord through an anterior dural defect. Here, we describe a 60-year-old female with an atypical SAW at the T3-T4 level (i.e., the preoperative MR failed to demonstrate the "positive scalpel sign"). Nevertheless, at surgery, intraoperative ultrasonography confirmed that SAW was present and was decompressed/marsupialized/removed. Case Description: A 60-year-old female presented with sensory impairment to both lower extremities. The thoracic MR images showed an enlarged dorsal CSF space at the T3-T4 level but without the "scalpel sign" suggesting "interruption" of CSF flow by thickened bands of focal dorsal arachnoidal tissues. Although the initial preoperative diagnosis was ISCH, intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) confirmed the presence of a thickened arachnoid band, confirming the diagnosis of a SAW that was appropriately decompressed/resected. Conclusion: Correctly, establishing the preoperative diagnosis of a SAW based on MR imaging may sometimes be difficult as the typical "scalpel sign" may not be present in all patients. Notably, in cases like this one, IOUS may critically confirm the diagnosis of SAW thus leading to appropriate SAW decompression/removal.
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.