Premium
CHANGES IN THE ELECTROPHORETIC PATTERN OF THE LUMBAR CEREBROSPINAL FLUID DURING FRACTIONAL GAS ENCEPHALOGRAPHY
Author(s) -
Iivanainen Matti,
Kostiainen Ella
Publication year - 1971
Publication title -
acta neurologica scandinavica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.967
H-Index - 95
eISSN - 1600-0404
pISSN - 0001-6314
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0404.1971.tb07467.x
Subject(s) - cerebrospinal fluid , electrophoresis , lumbar puncture , albumin , lumbar , cellulose acetate , chemistry , chromatography , pathology , medicine , anatomy , cellulose , biochemistry
The changes occurring in the electrophoretic pattern of the lumbar cerebrospinal fluid during GEG were studied in 144 mental defectives. The first sample was taken immediately after lumbar puncture prior to removal of CSF and injection of contrast gas. The last of the three samples was withdrawn approximately 25 min after the first, the patient being still seated. Altogether, 316 electrophoretic analyses were made with the cellulose acetate method. The factors possibly influencing the changes in the electrophoretic pattern were investigated statistically with the aid of a computer. The following changes in the mean proportions of the CSF protein electrophoretic fractions during GEG were found, with the χ 2 ‐test, to be significant: decrease in albumin and increase in α 2 ‐globulin and in β‐globulin. The grade of cortical gas filling seemed to be positively correlated with the magnitude of the electrophoretic changes. Thus, for example in cases of macroventriculy, where the cortical gas filling was generally poor, the electrophoretic changes were slight. The changes seem to be mainly attributable to changes in membrane permeability due to irritation by the GEG procedure in accordance with physico‐chemical laws. The admixture of CSF from the more cranial spaces with the lumbar samples seems to be only of secondary importance, as the primary differences are also due to permeability. It is important that the clinician should be aware of these changes in behaviour of the CSF electrophoretic pattern during GEG, so as to avoid unnecessary additional work and erroneous diagnoses and conclusions. Even statistically non‐significant changes may be of clinical importance if the only sample available for CSF electrophoresis is influenced by the irritating effect of GEG.