You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Image of the moment
Terson’s syndrome following epidural blood patch for spontaneous intracranial hypotension
  1. Hamzah Mohammed1,
  2. Nissanka Madipola2,
  3. Sanjiv Chawda3,
  4. Rajith Nilantha de Silva1
  1. 1 Department of Neurology, Queen's Hospital, Romford, UK
  2. 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Queen's Hospital, Romford, UK
  3. 3 Department of Neuroradiology, Queen's Hospital, Romford, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Hamzah Mohammed, Department of Neurology, Queen's Hospital, Romford, UK; hmohammed1928{at}gmail.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/pn-2023-003768

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Case description

    A 38-year-old woman with no prior medical history presented with an acute-onset orthostatic headache that worsened when upright and improved with recumbency. She was fully conscious and neurological examination was normal (pupils equally reactive). MR scan of brain showed bilateral subdural haematomas (19 mm right, 10 mm left) without midline shift, supporting a clinical suspicion of spontaneous intracranial hypotension (figure 1). Non-contrast MR scan of whole spine found no cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak.

    Figure 1

    MR scan of brain. Axial T1-weighted pre-contrast (A) and post-contrast (B) images showing bilateral subdural haematomas and dural enhancement (arrow), suggesting spontaneous intracranial hypotension.

    A non-targeted epidural blood patch comprising 40 mL autologous blood was performed and followed immediately by a syncopal episode. On regaining consciousness, her headache had improved with abolition of the positional element, …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors HM was involved in the patient’s care, drafted the manuscript and obtained patient consent. RNdS was responsible for editing and reviewing the manuscript. NM was involved in the patient’s care and involved in review of the manuscript. SC was involved in the patient’s care and involved in data collection.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned. Externally peer reviewed by Paul Kopanidis, Sydney, Australia.

    Other content recommended for you