Keywords
neurocysticercosis - lumbar - spine - intramedullary - rare
Introduction
Neurocysticercosis (NCC) is the most common parasitic infection of the central nervous
system (CNS), caused by the larval form of Taenia solium.[1] Pigs are the intermediate hosts, and humans are the definitive/intermediate hosts.
Common risk factors are poor personal hygiene and unsanitary pig raising practices.
Spinal cysticercosis is a rather rare clinical occurrence to come across with, as
per current literature.[2] With an incidence of 0.7 to 3%,[3] it is common to find it in the combination of intracranial cysticercosis. Spinal
NCC can be divided in extradural, intradural subarachnoid (leptomeningeal), and intramedullary
(IM) (parenchymal) forms. More common are cases with the dorsal spine involvement
than the other parts of the spinal cord.[4] IM presentation is usually the rarest. Here, we present a case of 35-year-old male
patient who was diagnosed to have L2-L3 spinal IM-NCC and managed surgically without
recurrence at 2 years of follow-up.
Case Report
A 35-year-old man presented with the complaints of low back ache for 12 years, radiating
to right leg for 4 months and numbness extending to lateral side of the sole of right
foot. On examination, there was a 30% sensory loss in right S1 dermatome as compared
with contralateral limb, with no bladder bowel involvement. Patient had no motor deficit.
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the lumbosacral spine was suggestive of IM cystic
lesion at L2-3 hypointense on T1-weighted images and hyperintense on T2-weighted images.
MRI brain did not reveal any abnormality. Lumbar puncture and serologic studies were
not performed.
With the differential diagnosis of neoplastic lesion, the patient was taken up for
posterior laminectomy. L2-3 laminectomy was done. A dural bulge was identified. On
durotomy, the cord was found to be enlarged. Under microscopic guidance, posterior
longitudinal myelotomy was done, the cysts were approached, and subtotal resection
of cysts was done. Intraoperatively, three grayish white cysts were identified. Cysts
were found to be adherent to the nerve roots causing their inflammation. As a result,
one of the cysts could not be excised and was only decompressed. The remaining two
cysts were completely excised. Histopathology revealed it to be NCC.
The patient improved postoperatively. Back pain was relieved, and there was significant
reduction in radiating pain. He was started on albendazole (15 mg/kg body weight)
for 4 weeks and steroids for 2 weeks. The patient was discharged on the 4th post-operative
day. He was followed-up biweekly for the first month. Thereafter, monthly follow-up
was done for the next 2 months. MRI done at 6 months confirmed resolution of the cystic
lesion. Thereafter, 6 monthly follow-up was done. Patient is symptom free and not
on any medication at 2 years of follow-up.
Discussion
Spinal NCC was originally reported by Rockitansky.[4] Its infrequent incidence (0.7–5.85%),[5] is attributed to the sieve effect provided by subarachnoid layer which filters cysticerci,
thus preventing them to pass. IM involvement occurs in less than one-fifth of the
cases with intradural pathology.[6] The cysticerci migrate via hematogenous and ventriculoependymal pathways, thus afflicting
mainly the dorsal segment of spinal cord primarily as a consequence of high-blood
flow.[5]
In 2017, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and American Society of
Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH)[7] recommended clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of NCC.
The said guidelines strongly advice prescription of corticosteroids in cases of spinal
NCC with spinal cord dysfunction and also as an adjunct to antiparasitic treatment.
As evidence to recommend one modality of treatment (medical or surgical) over the
other is lacking, authors suggested treatment be planned on case basis and surgical
expertise available.
Review of Literature and Results
The authors searched the PubMed database using keywords “Spinal neurocysticercosis”
and “spinal cord neurocysticercosis.” A total of 213 results were obtained which included
articles pertaining to both IM and extramedullary (EM) spinal cord NCC lesions.
Research papers reporting exclusive extra spinal involvement, no MRI assessment, published
in non-English vernacular, and conducted in nonhuman subjects were excluded from this
review ([Fig. 1]). In the final analysis, 77 articles were shortlisted, encompassing both EM and
IM involvement of spinal cord NCC ([Table 1]). The cumulative number of cases was 147. These include 100 (EM), 46 (IM), and 1
(EM + IM).[8]
Fig. 1 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart
for article selection process.
Table 1
Review of current literature
S.no
|
Authors
|
Country
|
Year
|
Age (yr)
|
Gender
|
Compartment
|
S.C level
|
Symptoms
|
Investigations
|
Mx
|
Remarks
|
1
|
Barrie et al[27]
|
USA
|
2020
|
44
|
F
|
IM
|
C5-6
|
M
|
M
|
S
|
Postop albendazole, steroid
|
2
|
Jobanputra et al[28]
|
USA
|
2020
|
44
|
F
|
IM
|
C5-C7
|
P, S
|
M
|
S
|
|
3
|
Garg et al[19]
|
India
|
2020
|
51
|
F
|
EM
|
L3-5
|
P, S
|
M
|
C
|
Malignant (progresses from spine to cranium)
|
4
|
Torres-Corzo et al[29]
|
Mexico
|
2019
|
39
|
M
|
EM
|
L4-S1
|
P, M
|
M
|
S (endoscopic)
|
P.O albendazole, Cranial +
|
|
|
|
|
32
|
F
|
EM
|
L5-S1
|
P, S
|
M
|
S (endoscopic)
|
P.O albendazole, Cranial +
|
|
|
|
|
22
|
F
|
EM
|
L1-4
|
P, M
|
M
|
S (endoscopic)
|
P.O albendazole, Cranial +
|
5
|
Lopez et al[30]
|
Ecuador
|
2019
|
58
|
M
|
EM
|
D4-6, D9-11
|
M, S, B
|
M
|
S
|
Multiple lesions
|
6
|
Li et al[31]
|
China
|
2019
|
|
F
|
EM
|
CMJ
|
H
|
M, IgG antibodies
|
S
|
HCP+
|
7
|
Shashidha[32]
|
India
|
2018
|
55
|
F
|
EM
|
L2-3
|
H, P
|
M, E, Eo
|
C
|
|
8
|
Almeid[33]
|
Brazil
|
2018
|
10
|
M
|
IM
|
D 3-4
|
M
|
M
|
S
|
P.O albendazole
|
9
|
Mast[2]
|
India
|
2018
|
30
|
M
|
IM
|
D11
|
P, M
|
M, E, CSF antibody+
|
M
|
|
10
|
Zhang et al[34]
|
China
|
2017
|
59
|
F
|
EM
|
L1-S1
|
P, B
|
M, E
|
S
|
Postop albendazole given
|
11
|
Datta et al[26]
|
India
|
2017
|
70
|
M
|
IM
|
D9-10
|
P, M, B
|
M
|
M
|
P.O albendazole, Operated twice
|
|
|
|
|
23
|
M
|
IM
|
D10-11
|
P, M, B
|
M
|
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
24
|
M
|
IM
|
D5-6
|
P, S
|
M
|
O
|
Refused Rx
|
12
|
Yacoub et al[8]
|
USA
|
2017
|
49
|
M
|
EM
|
C4-D4, D6-D9
|
M, S
|
M
|
S
|
Cranial + P. O Albendazole
|
13
|
Muralidharan et al[3]
|
India
|
2017
|
56
|
M
|
EM
|
CMJ-C4
|
M, S, B
|
M, EITB
|
S
|
P.O albendazole
|
14
|
Pal et al[35]
|
India
|
2017
|
44
|
M
|
EM
|
D12-L3, D1-D9
|
P, M, S
|
M
|
S
|
Operated twice, P. O Albendazole given, mimics arachnoid cyst
|
15
|
Yadav et al[36]
|
India
|
2017
|
8
|
M
|
IM
|
C5–6
|
P, M
|
M
|
M
|
|
16
|
Sharma[37]
|
India
|
2017
|
48
|
F
|
EM
|
L2-S2
|
P
|
M, Eo
|
S
|
P.O albendazole
|
17
|
Bansal et al[6]
|
India
|
2017
|
40
|
M
|
EM
|
L5-S1
|
P
|
M
|
S
|
P.O albendazole
|
18
|
Ranja[25]
|
India
|
2017
|
6
|
M
|
IM
|
C4-6
|
P
|
M, S. ELISA +
|
M
|
|
19
|
Hansberry et al[38]
|
USA
|
2016
|
49
|
M
|
EM
|
Post fossa to C2
|
M, S
|
M, WBA
|
S
|
Cranial +
|
20
|
Pant et al[39]
|
India
|
2016
|
60
|
M
|
IM
|
D11
|
M, R, B
|
M
|
S
|
P.O albendazole
|
|
|
|
|
25
|
F
|
EM
|
D12-L2
|
P, M
|
M
|
S
|
P.O albendazole
|
21
|
Torous et al[40]
|
USA
|
2016
|
40
|
M
|
EM
|
L4-S1
|
P, M, S, B
|
M
|
S
|
|
22
|
Valsangkar[41]
|
India
|
2015
|
40
|
M
|
IM
|
D10-12
|
P, M, B
|
M
|
S
|
P.O albendazole
|
23
|
Salazar Noguera[42]
|
Guatemala
|
2015
|
43
|
M
|
IM
|
C7-D1
|
M, S
|
M
|
S
|
|
24
|
Hackius[43]
|
Switzerland
|
2015
|
46
|
F
|
EM
|
C1-C2, L4–5
|
H, N, D
|
M, Eo, E
|
M
|
|
25
|
Cárdenas[9]
|
Mexico, India
|
2015
|
64
|
M
|
EM
|
CMJ
|
M
|
|
S
|
30 year study,19 Mexican,8 Indian
|
|
|
|
|
57
|
M
|
EM
|
CMJ
|
M
|
|
C
|
|
|
|
|
|
60
|
F
|
EM
|
D1-D7
|
M, B
|
|
C
|
|
|
|
|
|
68
|
M
|
EM
|
D12-L3
|
M, B, R
|
|
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
55
|
F
|
EM
|
C3-4
|
M, B
|
|
O
|
|
|
|
|
|
26
|
F
|
EM
|
C7-D2
|
M, B, R
|
|
C
|
|
|
|
|
|
57
|
F
|
EM
|
D5-7
|
S
|
|
C
|
|
|
|
|
|
21
|
M
|
EM
|
D5-7
|
S
|
|
C
|
|
|
|
|
|
50
|
M
|
EM
|
L4-5
|
M, B, R
|
|
C
|
|
|
|
|
|
48
|
M
|
EM
|
L3-4
|
M
|
|
C
|
VP diversion
|
|
|
|
|
29
|
F
|
EM
|
D4-8
|
M, B, R
|
|
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
52
|
M
|
EM
|
L3-5
|
S, B
|
|
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
45
|
F
|
EM
|
C1-5, C5-D8
|
M, B, R
|
|
C
|
|
|
|
|
|
64
|
F
|
EM
|
D1-2
|
S
|
|
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
32
|
M
|
EM
|
C2-3
|
S, Z
|
|
M
|
|
|
|
|
|
38
|
F
|
EM
|
L2-4
|
M
|
|
M
|
|
|
|
|
|
49
|
F
|
EM
|
CMC-C2
|
M
|
|
C
|
|
|
|
|
|
33
|
F
|
EM
|
C3-4, L2-4
|
S
|
|
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
62
|
F
|
EM
|
D5-8
|
M
|
|
M
|
|
|
|
|
|
50
|
F
|
EM
|
L4
|
M
|
|
C
|
|
|
|
|
|
16
|
F
|
IM
|
D11
|
M
|
|
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
35
|
F
|
EM
|
D12-L1
|
M
|
|
C
|
|
|
|
|
|
45
|
M
|
IM
|
CMJ
|
M
|
|
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
NA
|
NA
|
IM
|
D2
|
M
|
|
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
16
|
M
|
IM
|
L1
|
M, B
|
|
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
39
|
M
|
IM
|
D12
|
M
|
|
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
28
|
M
|
IM
|
D1–2
|
M
|
|
S
|
|
26
|
Chaurasia et al[21]
|
India
|
2015
|
|
M
|
IM
|
D11
|
M, B, P
|
M, E (CSF, serum)
|
M
|
Brown–Sequard Syndrome
|
27
|
Wang et al[44]
|
USA
|
2015
|
45
|
M
|
EM
|
CMJ
|
H, P
|
M, serum antibody +
|
S
|
P.O albendazole
|
28
|
Ganesan[45]
|
India
|
2015
|
32
|
M
|
EM
|
L2-S1
|
P, B, S
|
M
|
S
|
|
29
|
Han et al[46]
|
South Korea
|
2014
|
59
|
M
|
EM
|
L1-5
|
P, S, M
|
M
|
S
|
Multiple, P.O Albendazole
|
30
|
Vecchio et al[47]
|
Italy
|
2014
|
23
|
M
|
EM
|
L3-4
|
H, D
|
M, E
|
M
|
Cranial +
|
31
|
Amelot et al[48]
|
France
|
2014
|
48
|
M
|
EM
|
CVJ
|
M, H, PS
|
M
|
C (VP shunt)
|
Case series of 3 cases, 2 had spinal involvement
|
|
|
|
|
25
|
F
|
EM
|
L4-S2
|
H, P, AMS
|
M
|
EVD, S
|
|
32
|
Kim et al[49]
|
South Korea
|
2014
|
64
|
M
|
EM
|
D12-L1, L3-4
|
H, M, B
|
M
|
S (VP shunt+ laminectomy)
|
Hydrocephalus +, P.O albendazole
|
33
|
Qazi[14]
|
India
|
2014
|
19
|
M
|
IM
|
D11-L1
|
M, B
|
M
|
S
|
|
34
|
Yoo et al[50]
|
South Korea
|
2014
|
42
|
M
|
EM
|
D11-S1
|
P
|
M, S.E
|
S
|
P.O albendazole
|
35
|
Lacoangeli[51]
|
Italy
|
2013
|
44
|
F
|
EM
|
L4-5
|
P, M, S, B
|
M
|
S
|
P.O albendazole
|
36
|
Chandramohan[15]
|
India
|
2013
|
15
|
M
|
IM
|
L1
|
M, B, R
|
M, Western blot
|
M
|
|
37
|
Rice et al[22]
|
USA
|
2012
|
42
|
M
|
IM
|
D10-D11
|
M, S
|
M
|
S
|
Brown–Sequard Syndrome
|
38
|
De Deo et al[52]
|
Italy
|
2012
|
49
|
M
|
EM
|
D6-8, D10-11
|
H, M
|
M
|
S
|
Cranial + , P.O Albendazole
|
39
|
Callacondo et al[53]
|
Peru
|
2012
|
NA
|
NA
|
All 18 EM
|
LS M.C
|
|
|
|
Out of 55 patients with cranial NCC (intraparenchymal + basal cisterns) 18 pt had
spinal involvement all EM
|
40
|
Jain et al[16]
|
India
|
2012
|
20
|
M
|
IM
|
C2
|
Z, M, B
|
M, IgG
|
M
|
Lost to follow up, Cranial+
|
41
|
Shin et al[54]
|
South Korea
|
2012
|
48
|
M
|
EM
|
D12-S1
|
M, B
|
M
|
S
|
P.O albendazole
|
42
|
Agale[10]
|
India
|
2012
|
38
|
M
|
IM
|
D10-11
|
M
|
M
|
S
|
P.O albendazole
|
43
|
Kapu et al[55]
|
India
|
2012
|
38
|
F
|
EM
|
D12-L1
|
P, M, S
|
M
|
S
|
P.O albendazole, Cysticercal abscess
|
44
|
Bin Qi et al[56]
|
China
|
2011
|
40
|
F
|
IM
|
D4-5
|
M, B, R
|
|
S
|
P.O anticyststicercal agents
|
45
|
Seo et al[57]
|
South Korea
|
2011
|
59
|
M
|
EM
|
D12-L1, L4-5
|
H, V
|
M, Eo
|
S
|
P.O albendazole, ocular symptoms, Visual defects persisted
|
46
|
Jongwutiwes[58]
|
USA
|
2011
|
59
|
F
|
EM
|
L1–4
|
M, S, B
|
M, S.E
|
S
|
|
47
|
Park[59]
|
South Korea
|
2011
|
72
|
M
|
EM
|
L5-S1
|
P, M
|
M
|
S
|
Cranial + HCP+
|
48
|
Lambertucci[60]
|
Brazil
|
2011
|
23
|
M
|
IM
|
C3–5
|
P, M
|
M
|
S
|
P.O albendazole
|
49
|
Azfar [61]
|
India
|
2011
|
10
|
F
|
IM
|
D2
|
M, S, B, R
|
CSF E
|
M
|
|
50
|
Vij et al[23]
|
India
|
2011
|
20
|
M
|
IM
|
D10-11
|
P, M, S, B
|
M
|
S
|
Coexisting IM Schwannoma
|
51
|
Jang et al[62]
|
South Korea
|
2010
|
50
|
F
|
EM
|
L5-S1
|
P
|
M
|
S
|
Reoperated, P.O Albendazole
|
52
|
Boulos et al[63]
|
Canada
|
2010
|
35
|
F
|
EM
|
CMJ
|
H, S
|
M
|
S
|
P.O albendazole, Cranial leptomeningeal enhancement +
|
53
|
Lim et al[64]
|
South Korea
|
2010
|
42
|
M
|
EM
|
C2-L2
|
M
|
M
|
S (D3–5, L1–3)
|
H/O HCP +, P.O Albendazole
|
54
|
Choi et al[65]
|
South Korea
|
2010
|
43
|
F
|
EM
|
L5-S1
|
P, M, S
|
M
|
S
|
PIVD L5-S1, P.O Albendazole
|
55
|
Gonçalves et al[66]
|
USA
|
2010
|
62
|
M
|
IM
|
D11
|
P, M, S, B
|
M
|
S
|
|
56
|
Chibber et al[67]
|
India
|
2009
|
38
|
F
|
IM
|
D5-6
|
P, M, B
|
M, E
|
M
|
|
57
|
Shin[68]
|
South Korea
|
2009
|
45
|
M
|
EM
|
C1-L1
|
M, B
|
M, CSF ELISA
|
S
|
Cranial + HCP +, P.O albendazole
|
58
|
Kasliwal et al[69]
|
India
|
2008
|
34
|
M
|
EM
|
C1-C2
|
P, M, H
|
M
|
S
|
P.O. albendazole
|
59
|
Izci et al[12]
|
USA
|
2008
|
70
|
M
|
IM
|
D11-L1
|
M, B, R
|
M
|
S
|
P.O albendazole
|
60
|
Paterakis[70]
|
Greece
|
2007
|
60
|
M
|
EM
|
L3, L5-S1
|
P, M, B
|
M
|
S
|
P.O Albendazole
|
61
|
Ahmad[11]
|
India
|
2007
|
8
|
F
|
IM
|
D8
|
P, M, B
|
M
|
S
|
P.O albendazole
|
|
|
|
|
35
|
F
|
IM
|
D1-2
|
P, M, S, B
|
M
|
S
|
P.O albendazole
|
62
|
Guedes-Corrêa[13]
|
Brazil
|
2006
|
53
|
F
|
IM
|
D12-L1
|
P
|
M
|
S
|
|
63
|
Delobel[71]
|
France
|
2004
|
45
|
M
|
EM
|
L3-4
|
P, M, B
|
M, E (CSF, serum)
|
S
|
HIV + cranial +, Brown Sequard syndrome, P.O Albendazole
|
64
|
Torabi et al[17]
|
USA
|
2004
|
35
|
M
|
IM
|
C4, D4-9
|
H, P, M, B
|
M
|
M
|
Cranial + HCP +, Multilevel
|
65
|
Alsina et al[18]
|
USA
|
2002
|
38
|
M
|
EM
|
L2-3
|
M, B
|
M
|
C
|
Cranial +
|
|
|
|
|
14
|
F
|
EM
|
C5-D1
|
M
|
M
|
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
36
|
M
|
EM
|
C5
|
M
|
M
|
S
|
Cranial+
|
|
|
|
|
40
|
M
|
EM
|
FM
|
H
|
M
|
C
|
|
|
|
|
|
28
|
F
|
IM
|
C1
|
M
|
M
|
M
|
Cranial +
|
|
|
|
|
80
|
M
|
EM
|
D4-5, D7-9
|
P
|
M
|
S
|
|
66
|
Colli[72]
|
Brazil
|
2002
|
15
|
F
|
EM
|
D9
|
M
|
M
|
S
|
HCP+
|
|
|
|
|
23
|
F
|
EM
|
D2-L1
|
P, M
|
M
|
S
|
HCP+
|
|
|
|
|
24
|
F
|
EM
|
L2-5
|
P, S
|
M
|
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
36
|
F
|
EM
|
D11-L5
|
M, B, R
|
M
|
O
|
HCP+
|
|
|
|
|
40
|
F
|
EM
|
C5-6
|
M, B
|
M
|
S
|
HCP+
|
|
|
|
|
43
|
F
|
EM
|
L3-5
|
P, M
|
M
|
S
|
HCP+
|
|
|
|
|
46
|
F
|
EM
|
D1-2
|
M, S
|
M
|
S
|
HCP+
|
|
|
|
|
46
|
F
|
EM
|
D9-L1
|
P, M, B, R
|
M
|
S
|
HCP+
|
|
|
|
|
22
|
M
|
EM
|
D1
|
P
|
M
|
O
|
HCP+
|
|
|
|
|
24
|
M
|
EM
|
D8-L2
|
P
|
M
|
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
24
|
M
|
EM
|
L3-4 S1
|
P, S, M
|
M
|
S
|
HCP+
|
|
|
|
|
51
|
M
|
EM
|
C3-7
|
|
M
|
S
|
|
67
|
Sheehan[73]
|
USA
|
2002
|
16
|
F
|
IM
|
C1-2
|
S
|
M
|
S
|
P.O praziquantel
|
68
|
Homans[4]
|
USA
|
2001
|
5
|
F
|
IM
|
D11-12
|
P, B
|
M, EITB
|
S
|
Cranial + operated twice
|
69
|
Mathuriya et al[74]
|
India
|
2001
|
28
|
M
|
IM
|
D1
|
P, M, S, B
|
M
|
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
55
|
M
|
IM
|
D1-2
|
P, M, S, B
|
M
|
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
50
|
M
|
IM
|
D11
|
P, M, S, B
|
M
|
S
|
|
70
|
Gaur et al[24]
|
India
|
2000
|
22
|
F
|
IM
|
D8
|
M, S, B
|
CSF ELISA
|
M
|
|
|
|
|
|
27
|
F
|
IM
|
D5-6
|
M, S, B, R
|
CSF ELISA
|
M
|
|
71
|
Ciftçi et al[75]
|
USA
|
1999
|
30
|
F
|
EM
|
C2-4
|
H, P
|
M
|
NA
|
HCP +
|
72
|
Garg et al[76]
|
India
|
1998
|
11
|
M
|
IM
|
D9
|
M, S, B
|
M, CSF, S. ELISA
|
M
|
Cranial+
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
M
|
IM
|
D8
|
M, S, B
|
M
|
M
|
|
73
|
Lau et al[77]
|
Hong Kong
|
1998
|
35
|
M
|
EM
|
D11-S1
|
M, S, HL
|
M
|
S
|
Cranial+
|
74
|
Davies[78]
|
Australia
|
1996
|
40
|
M
|
EM
|
C3-6
|
M, H, PS
|
M
|
S
|
Cranial + CSF diversion done multiple times, P.O Praziquantel
|
75
|
Corral[20]
|
Spain
|
1996
|
20
|
F
|
IM
|
C
|
Z, S, M
|
M, E
|
M
|
Cranial +
|
76
|
Isidro-Llorens[79]
|
Spain
|
1993
|
30
|
F
|
EM + IM
|
C7-L2, IM at D
|
M
|
M
|
S
|
Operated twice, P.O Praziquantal
|
77
|
Bandres et al[80]
|
USA
|
1992
|
34
|
M
|
EM
|
C2, S1-L3
|
P
|
M
|
M
|
A case series of 5 patients, ventricular dilation +
|
Abbreviations: CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; CMJ, cervicomedullary junction; CVJ, craniovertebral
junction; EM, extramedullary; EITB, enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot; ELISA,
enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; IgG, immunoglobulin G; IM, intramedullary; VP,
ventriculoperitoneal.
The literature review done by authors revealed only 33 articles (case reports and
series) pertaining to the IM-NCC, the earliest being published in 1996.It translates
to three articles being published from 1996–2000, followed by nine articles being
in print from 2001–2010, and finally 21 articles from 2011–2020. Evidently, there
has been increased scientific interest in spinal NCC. Increase in data availability
will help to make more evidence-based treatment guidelines possible.
The review brings forth the fact that such cases were found not only in countries
of Asia, Mexico but also in countries of the developed world. Eighteen such publications
originate from India, followed by eight in the United States, three in Brazil, and
one each in China, Guatemala and Spain. A 30-year long (1980–2010) combined research
study was undertaken by clinicians from Mexico and India[9].In most instances, the patients in the developed nations have a history of travel
to the endemic region or a history of immigration.[10]
[11]
[12] It not only highlights the significance of cultural and environmental impact in
this parasitic disease but also the need to consider this rare entity as a differential
in such patients by clinicians in the developed world.
The patients with IM-NCC ranged in age from 5 to 70 years with an average of 31.06
years. Among the 46 patients of IM-NCC, 30 were male and 15 were female. In one of
the study, this information was not provided.[9]
Spinal NCC has been reported to occur most commonly in the dorsal spine. The authors
found majority (n = 32) of the IM-NCC has been reported to be located in dorsal or dorsolumbar levels,
including two cases occurring at D11-L1 and D12-L1.[13]
[14] It is followed by cervical and cervicodorsal region (n = 12). Highly sporadic occurrence has been reported in the lumbar region. Two of 46
cases of IM-NCC occur purely in the lumbar region.[9]
[15] Our patient is only the third reported case with pure lumbar involvement. With such
an unusual occurrence, the diagnosis of the NCC was overlooked, and intraoperative
findings were contrasting to our preoperative assessment, compelling us to share our
experience.
Isolated spinal NCC is not a common occurrence. Concomitant cranial lesions are usually
present. Of the 147 cases thus reported, 39 patients were known to have a concurrent
or a history of cranial involvement. Six of the patients with IM-NCC had such a finding.[4]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
Eighteen of patients with spinal NCC were reported to have hydrocephalus. Only one
of these patients had IM-NCC,[17] who also had an evidence of cranial NCC.
The most common symptoms in patients with IM-NCC were those of motor involvement (40),
followed by bladder involvement (26), back pain (21), sensory involvement (17), and
bowel involvement (6). Two patients had complaints of seizures while headache was
seen in one patient. These patients had cervical spine and brain lesions. Two patients
(dorsal level IM-NCC) presented with Brown–Séquard syndrome (dorsal lesion).[21]
[22] One of the patients was found to have a coexisting schwannoma at D10-11 lesion.[23] Patients with pure lumbar involvement had motor symptoms and bladder bowel involvement.[9]
[15]
MRI is the investigation of choice for spinal NCC. Research papers with no MRI assessment
were excluded from this review. MRI is the most essential to make diagnosis of spinal
pathology, its level, and compartment involved. Other investigations may not always
be helpful. In only 12 of the cases of IM-NCC, antibodies were detected by various
techniques, including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), Western blot, and
enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot (EITB).[24]
[25]
In the review, it was concluded that surgery was the main modality of treatment (n = 29), while 16 patients were managed medically with anticysticercal agents (albendazole,
praziquantel). One of the patients refused any treatment. Postop medical treatment
was given to 12 patients. Redo surgery was required in two cases, both were in dorsal
region.[4]
[26] There is no conclusive evidence pointing to advantage of one modality over the other.
Case-based decisions are made, and patients are treated, according to clinical expertise
available
Conclusion
IM spinal NCC is a rare occurrence, even scarcer in the lumbar regions. To the author's
knowledge, this case study is only the third to be reported in global data, thus adding
up to the current literature.
Given its rarity, it is highly likely that such a diagnosis be ignored at the outset.
It is prudent to consider this differential, especially in relation to patient history,
travel history, personal history, and cultural background, to avoid any surprise.
Advocated by clinical judgement, although medical treatment has been followed by similar
results, surgical intervention remains the mainstay of treatment of spinal NCC. Although
clinicians do prescribe steroids and antiparasitic agents in postop period, strong
evidence-based guidelines are needed, necessitating more high-quality research. Steady
follow-up is crucial to detect recurrence.