Effects of stylet-in versus stylet-out collection of cerebrospinal fluid from the cisterna magna on contamination of samples, sample quality, and collection time

Shelly K. Shamir, Christopher R.M. Hagen, Peter M. Foley, Cornelia V. Gilroy, Jenny Yu, Pierre M. Amsellem

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To evaluate safety of stylet-in and stylet-out techniques for collection of CSF from the cisterna magna and to assess whether there were differences between techniques with regard to contamination of samples, sample quality, and efficiency of collection. ANIMALS 10 adult purpose-bred research Beagles. PROCEDURES A prospective crossover study was conducted. Preanesthetic physical and neurologic examinations and hematologic analyses were performed. Dogs were anesthetized, and collection of CSF samples from the cisterna magna by use of a stylet-in or stylet-out technique was performed. Two weeks later, samples were collected with the other sample collection technique. Samples of CSF were processed within 1 hour after collection. RESULTS Cellular debris was detected in higher numbers in stylet-in samples, although this did not affect sample quality. The stylet-out technique was performed more rapidly. No adverse effects were detected for either technique. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Both techniques could be safely performed in healthy anesthetized dogs. The stylet-out technique was performed more rapidly and yielded a sample with less cellular debris. Both techniques can be used in clinical practice to yield CSF samples with good diagnostic quality.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)787-791
Number of pages5
JournalAmerican journal of veterinary research
Volume80
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2019

PubMed: MeSH publication types

  • Clinical Trial, Veterinary
  • Journal Article

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Effects of stylet-in versus stylet-out collection of cerebrospinal fluid from the cisterna magna on contamination of samples, sample quality, and collection time'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this