Download PDF
Semin intervent Radiol 2023; 40(03): 308-311
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1769771
Review Article

New-Onset Paralysis following Biopsy of a Retroperitoneal Mass with Intraspinal Extension in a Pediatric Patient

Michelle Wiese
1   Department of Interventional Radiology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
,
Shankar Rajeswaran
1   Department of Interventional Radiology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
2   Department of Interventional Radiology, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Image-guided percutaneous biopsies are routine, safe procedures and complications are infrequent and usually directly related to the biopsy itself. This report describes a biopsy of a retroperitoneal mass with extension into the spinal canal, following which the patient developed paralysis unrelated to the biopsy itself but secondary to spinal cord ischemia during the procedure. Multiple factors contributed to the ischemia, including prone positioning, compression of spinal vasculature by the mass, low arterial pressures, and an extended duration of anesthesia. While the patient eventually recovered neurologic function, it is an important reminder to consider individual patient factors that may complicate typically routine procedures. In masses with intraspinal extension, patient positioning is critical to prevent positional ischemia, and maintaining elevated mean arterial pressures is crucial for ensuring adequate spinal perfusion throughout the procedure.

Keywords

retroperitoneal mass - paralysis - spinal cord ischemia


Publication History

Article published online:
20 July 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Tomozawa Y, Inaba Y, Yamaura H. et al. Clinical value of CT-guided needle biopsy for retroperitoneal lesions. Korean J Radiol 2011; 12 (03) 351-357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Shao H, McCarthy C, Wehrenberg-Klee E. et al. CT-guided percutaneous needle biopsy of retroperitoneal and pelvic lymphadenopathy: assessment of technique, diagnostic yield, and clinical value. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2018; 29 (10) 1429-1436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Stattaus J, Kalkmann J, Kuehl H. et al. Diagnostic yield of computed tomography-guided coaxial core biopsy of undetermined masses in the free retroperitoneal space: single-center experience. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2008; 31 (05) 919-925
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Gani MS, Shafee AM, Soliman IY. Ultrasound guided percutaneous fine needle aspiration biopsy/automated needle core biopsy of abdominal lesions: effect on management and cost effectiveness. Ann Afr Med 2011; 10 (02) 133-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bevilacqua A, D'Amuri FV, Pagnini F. et al. Percutaneous needle biopsy of retroperitoneal lesions: technical developments. Acta Biomed 2019; 90 (5-S): 62-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Berger-Richardson D, Burtenshaw SM, Ibrahim AM. et al. Early and late complications of percutaneous core needle biopsy of retroperitoneal tumors at two tertiary sarcoma centers. Ann Surg Oncol 2019; 26 (13) 4692-4698
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Devin CL, Teeple EA, Linden AF, Gresh RC, Berman L. The morbidity of open tumor biopsy for intraabdominal neoplasms in pediatric patients. Pediatr Surg Int 2021; 37 (10) 1349-1354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Rimondi E, Rossi G, Bartalena T. et al. Percutaneous CT-guided biopsy of the musculoskeletal system: results of 2027 cases. Eur J Radiol 2011; 77 (01) 34-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Michalopoulos GD, Yolcu YU, Ghaith AK, Alvi MA, Carr CM, Bydon M. Diagnostic yield, accuracy, and complication rate of CT-guided biopsy for spinal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurointerv Surg 2021; 13 (09) 841-847
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kim C, Blank J, McClain BC. Transient paraparesis after general anesthesia in a patient in the prone position. Anesthesiology 1994; 81 (03) 775-777
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Edgcombe H, Carter K, Yarrow S. Anaesthesia in the prone position. Br J Anaesth 2008; 100 (02) 165-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Valls PL, Naul LG, Kanter SL. Paraplegia after a routine lumbar laminectomy: report of a rare complication and successful management. Neurosurgery 1990; 27 (04) 638-640
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Pronin S, Koh CH, Bulovaite E, Macleod MR, Statham PF. Compressive pressure versus time in cauda equina syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies. Spine 2019; 44 (17) 1238-1247
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Sahin MC, Ipek EM, Zinnuroglu M, Borcek AO. How did intraoperative neuromonitorization prevent tetraplegia?. Childs Nerv Syst 2023; 39 (05) 1323-1328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Yahanda AT, Chicoine MR. Paralysis caused by spinal cord injury after posterior fossa surgery: a systematic review. World Neurosurg 2020; 139: 151-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Maduri R, Daniel RT, Diezi M, Cotting J, Messerer M. Paraplegia after posterior fossa surgery in prone position: can we prevent it?. Childs Nerv Syst 2017; 33 (01) 25-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Martínez-Lage JF, Almagro MJ, Izura V, Serrano C, Ruiz-Espejo AM, Sánchez-Del-Rincón I. Cervical spinal cord infarction after posterior fossa surgery: a case-based update. Childs Nerv Syst 2009; 25 (12) 1541-1546
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Alektoroff K, Kettner M, Papanagiotou P. [Spinal cord ischemia]. Radiologe 2021; 61 (03) 263-266
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Turker RJ, Slack C, Regan Q. Thoracic paraplegia after lumbar spinal surgery. J Spinal Disord 1995; 8 (03) 195-200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Bhardwaj A, Long DM, Ducker TB, Toung TJ. Neurologic deficits after cervical laminectomy in the prone position. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2001; 13 (04) 314-319
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar