| Title |
Surgical treatment of a broken neuroplasty catheter in the epidural space: a case report
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Case Reports, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13256-016-1064-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tae Hyun Kim, Jun Jae Shin, Woo Yong Lee |
| Abstract |
Percutaneous epidural neuroplasty with a Racz catheter is widely used to treat radicular pain caused by spinal stenosis or a herniated intervertebral disc. The breakage or shearing of an epidural catheter, particularly a percutaneous epidural neuroplasty catheter, is reported as a rare complication. There has been a controversy over whether surgical removal of a shorn epidural catheter is needed. Until now, only three cases related to sheared Racz neuroplasty catheters have been reported. We report a case of a neuroplasty catheter which completely broke when it was inserted into the epidural space, and compressed root symptoms were exacerbated by the broken catheter. A 68-year-old Asian man with leg pain and lower back pain caused by lumbar vertebral body 4 to lumbar vertebral body 5 intervertebral disc herniation and stenosis underwent percutaneous epidural neuroplasty. During the procedure, the epidural neuroplasty catheter was trapped in the left foraminal portion and broke. Our patient complained of left-side leg pain and numbness. Surgery performed to remove the broken catheter led to complete resolution of his leg pain and numbness. We report a rare case of catheter breakage occurring during epidural neuroplasty. We suggest surgical removal because the implanted catheter can aggravate a patient's symptoms and lead to the development of neurologic deficits due to infection, fibrosis, or mechanical neural irritation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 12% |
| Researcher | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Unknown | 4 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 53% |
| Psychology | 2 | 12% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 October 2016.
All research outputs
#18,473,108
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#2,267
of 3,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,059
of 319,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#50
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,932 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,894 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.