4.1 Article

Low cerebrospinal fluid protein in prepubertal children with idiopathic intracranial hypertension

期刊

JOURNAL OF AAPOS
卷 19, 期 2, 页码 135-139

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2015.01.006

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE To evaluate a clinical observation that prepubertal children with idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) have low cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) protein levels compared to healthy children and pubertal patients with JIB. METHODS The medical records of prepubertal and pubertal JIB patients and controls seen in the pediatric neuro-ophthalmology clinic at Duke between 2003 and 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. The control group consisted of children who had normal intracranial pressure on lumbar puncture performed to evaluate for headaches or anomalous-looking optic nerves. The records were analyzed with attention to demographic characteristics, clinical presentation, course, and lumbar puncture results. RESULTS A total of 23 prepubertal children with IIH (age range, 0.75-13 years), 16 pubertal patients with JIB (age range, 13-21 years), and 12 controls (age range 3-14 years) were included. CSF analysis revealed that prepubertal children with LIH had significantly lower CSF protein levels (17.3 +/- 5.7 mg/dL) compared to pubertal subjects with IIH (23.4 +/- 8.4 mg/dL; P = 0.019) or healthy controls (23.5 +/- 6.4 mg/dL; P = 0.011). Furthermore, 9 of 23 prepubertal IIH patients (39%) had abnormally low CSF protein level (<15 mg/dL), compared to zero pubertal IIH patients (P = 0.005) and zero controls (P = 0.015). Acetazolamide increased CSF protein level in 100% of patients who underwent repeat lumbar puncture after starting the medication (average increase, 10.3 +/- 6.6 mg/dL). CONCLUSIONS Low CSF protein level may have diagnostic utility as a biomarker for prepubertal JIB. Furthermore, this finding suggests that some cases of prepubertal IIH may be caused by CSF overproduction rather than decreased CSF resorption.

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

4.1
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