BACKGROUND Intrathecal injection is an attractive route through which drugs can be administered and directed to the spinal cord, restricted by the blood-spinal cord barrier. However, in vivo data on the distribution of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) substances in the human spinal cord are lacking. We conducted this study to assess the enrichment of a CSF tracer in the upper cervical spinal cord and the brain stem.METHODS After lumbar intrathecal injection of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contrast agent, gadobutrol, repeated blood samples and MRI of the upper cervical spinal cord, brain stem, and adjacent subarachnoid spaces (SAS) were obtained through 48 hours. The MRI scans were then analyzed for tracer distribution in the different regions and correlated to age, disease, and amounts of tracer in the blood to determine CSF-to-blood clearance.RESULTS The study included 26 reference individuals and 35 patients with the dementia subtype idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH). The tracer enriched all analyzed regions. Moreover, tracer enrichment in parenchyma was associated with tracer enrichment in the adjacent SAS and with CSF-to-blood clearance. Clearance from the CSF was delayed in patients with iNPH compared with younger reference patients.CONCLUSION A CSF tracer substance administered to the lumbar thecal sac can access the parenchyma of the upper cervical spinal cord and brain stem. Since CSF-to-blood clearance is highly individual and is associated with tracer level in CSF, clearance assessment may be used to tailor intrathecal treatment regimes.FUNDING South-Eastern Norway Regional Health and Østfold Hospital Trust supported the research and publication of this work.
Erik Melin, Are Hugo Pripp, Per Kristian Eide, Geir Ringstad
Usage data is cumulative from April 2024 through April 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 567 | 123 |
84 | 34 | |
Figure | 222 | 3 |
Table | 87 | 0 |
Supplemental data | 68 | 0 |
Citation downloads | 60 | 0 |
Totals | 1,088 | 160 |
Total Views | 1,248 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.