↓ Skip to main content

Delayed-onset paralysis induced by spontaneous spinal epidural hematoma communicated with hematoma in the paraspinal muscle in a 6-month-old girl: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in Child's Nervous System, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Delayed-onset paralysis induced by spontaneous spinal epidural hematoma communicated with hematoma in the paraspinal muscle in a 6-month-old girl: a case report
Published in
Child's Nervous System, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00381-018-3971-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hiroshi Uei, Yasuaki Tokuhashi, Masafumi Maseda, Masahiro Nakahashi, Hirokatsu Sawada, Hiroyuki Miyakata

Abstract

Spontaneous spinal epidural hematoma (SSEH) very rarely develops in infants younger than 1 year old. To our knowledge, no previous case of delayed-onset paralysis induced by SSEH communicated with hematoma in the paraspinal muscle has been reported in the literature. The authors present the case of a 6-month-old girl with a tumor mass on her back who developed a paresis of her bilateral lower limbs. On spinal magnetic resonance imaging, the epidural mass appeared to be a dumbbell type and communicated with the mass in the paraspinal muscle through T12/L1 intervertebral foramen at the right side. After excision of the mass in the paraspinal muscle, hemi-laminectomy of T10-L3 was performed. No solid lesion was also present in the spinal canal and it was found to be an epidural hematoma. No malignancy was observed on pathological examination, and vascular and nerve system tumors were negative. When a tumor mass suddenly develops on the back of an infant and motor impairment of the lower limbs develops as the mass gradually enlarges, differential diagnosis should be performed taking SSEH into consideration.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 20%
Student > Postgraduate 2 20%
Unspecified 1 10%
Professor 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Other 2 20%
Unknown 1 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 10%
Neuroscience 1 10%
Social Sciences 1 10%
Unknown 3 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 September 2018.
All research outputs
#20,533,292
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from Child's Nervous System
#1,823
of 2,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#292,783
of 336,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Child's Nervous System
#38
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,821 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 336,306 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.