ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine
Comparison of atlantoaxial and lumbosacral cerebrospinal fluid centesis techniques in South American camelids.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of atlantoaxial and lumbosacral cerebrospinal fluid centesis techniques in South American camelids.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIatrogenic blood contamination during cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) centesis is common, which can limit the diagnostic usefulness of the sample. A novel ultrasound-guided CSF collection technique is described in horses, by which CSF is obtained from the atlantoaxial (AA) space. HYPOTHESIS/
objectivesTo compare ultrasound-guided AA centesis with lumbosacral (LS) centesis in South American camelids (SAC). The hypotheses were that AA centesis would yield samples with less blood contamination although being technically more challenging than LS centesis. ANIMALS: Eight clinically healthy adult SAC from a university-owned teaching herd.
methodsSingle-blinded, randomized, 4-way, 4-period crossover study in which 2 veterinarians each performed both centesis techniques on each animal once. Cytological sample analysis was performed, and the technical difficulty of sample acquisition was assessed.
resultsThe CSF was collected successfully and without complications by either technique during all collection attempts. Aspects of technical difficulty and concentrations of CSF analytes did not vary significantly between techniques. Median total nucleated cell and red blood cell counts were 1/μL and 0.5/μL and 167.5/μL and 155/μL for AA and LS techniques, respectively. The median total protein concentration was 32.9 mg/dL and 38 mg/dL for AA and LS centeses. A median of 1 attempt was necessary for both centesis techniques and the median number of needle repositioning events was 1 for AA and 0 for LS. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Depending on clinical circumstances, ultrasound-guided AA centesis appears to be an acceptable alternative to other techniques for collection of CSF from SAC.
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.