4.7 Article

Ultrasound-guided lumbar puncture for nusinersen administration in spinal muscular atrophy patients

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 28, 期 2, 页码 676-680

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ene.14586

关键词

lumbar puncture; nusinersen; spinal muscular atrophy; ultrasound complex spine and intrathecal

资金

  1. FUNDAME [FUN-000-2017-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrates that ultrasound-guided lumbar puncture is a safe and effective method for treating spinal muscular atrophy patients with complex spine diseases, with a high success rate and few observed adverse events.
Background and purpose The purpose was to report the results of ultrasound-guided lumbar puncture for the administration of nusinersen in spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) patients with complex spines. Methods Eighteen SMA patients (five children, five adolescents and eight adults) with either severe scoliosis or spondylodesis were evaluated for ultrasound-guided lumbar puncture. Ultrasound was performed with a 3.5 MHz transducer to guide a 22 gauge x 15 mm needle, which was placed in the posterior lumbar space following a parasagittal interlaminar approach. Results Twelve patients had undergone spinal instrumentation (nine growing rods and three spinal fusion) whilst the other six showed severe scoliosis. Success was achieved in 91/94 attempts (96.8%), in 14/18 patients (77.8%), including 100% of children and adolescents and 50% of adult patients. In two of the unsuccessfully treated patients, computed tomography and fluoroscopy-guided transforaminal lumbar punctures were also tried without success. After a median follow-up of 14 months, only few adverse events, mostly mild, were observed. Conclusion The ultrasound-guided lumbar puncture, following an interlaminar parasagittal approach, is a safe and effective approach for intrathecal treatment with nusinersen in children, adolescents and carefully selected adult SMA patients with complex spines and could be considered the first option in them.

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

4.7
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