• 1. Bohn AA, Wells TB, West CL, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid analysis and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of neurologic disease in dogs: a retrospective study. Vet Clin Pathol 2006;35:315320.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. Cook JR, DeNicola DB. Cerebrospinal fluid. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1988;18:475499.

  • 3. Di Terlizzi R, Platt SR. The function, composition and analysis of cerebrospinal fluid in companion animals: part I—function and composition. Vet J 2006;172:422431.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Di Terlizzi R, Platt SR. The function, composition and analysis of cerebrospinal fluid in companion animals: part II—analysis. Vet J 2009;180:1532.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Mohammad-Zadeh LF, Sisson AF. Cerebrospinal fluid collection and analysis. NAVC Clin Brief 2005;21–23.

  • 6. Wessmann A, Volk HA, Chandler K, et al. Significance of surface epithelial cells in canine cerebrospinal fluid and relationship to central nervous system disease. Vet Clin Pathol 2010;39:358364.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7. Greene SA. Anesthesia for patients with neurologic disease. Top Companion Anim Med 2010;25:8386.

Advertisement

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

View More View Less
  • 1 1Department of Companion Animals, Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, PE C1A 4P3, Canada.
  • | 2 2Department of Pathology and Microbiology, Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, PE C1A 4P3, Canada.
  • | 3 3Department of Health Management, Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, PE C1A 4P3, Canada.

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.

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.

Contributor Notes

Dr. Shamir's present address is Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.

Dr. Hagen's present address is Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.

Dr. Amsellem's present address is Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN 55108.

Address correspondence to Dr. Amsellem (amsellem@umn.edu).