Abstract
Objective: Lumbosacral Radiculomyelopathy is an uncommon presentation of Neuromyelitis Optica (NMO). It has been reported in 2 patients with NMO Spectrum Disorders (NMOSD). We present a patient with diagnosed NMOSD and lumbosacral radiculomyelopathy.
Background: Classically NMO tends to spare the conus. One report suggests that lesions in the conus medullaris were seen in 1.58% in NMOSD, and 9.6% in anti-AQP4 antibody positive cases. In myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-positive NMO/NMOSD, conus involvement on spinal magnetic resonance imaging is 75%, whereas in AQP4-Ab-positive cases it is only seen in 17%.
Design/Methods: Case: A 21-year-old female presented with Area Postrema syndrome. Following imaging and a positive serum anti-aquaporin 4 antibody, she was diagnosed with NMOSD. She was started on disease modifying agent Rituxan which was administered at 6 monthly intervals or if her CD19 counts increased whichever came earlier. She later presented to clinic with urinary incontinence and saddle anesthesia. The MRI spine demonstrated a lesion in the conus medullaris and contrast enhancement of the nerve roots in the cauda equina. Work up for other etiologies was negative.
Results: The patient had an NMO flare constituting Myeloradiculopathy, a rare presentation of NMOSD. She received Plasmapharesis with near complete resolution of her symptoms.
Conclusions: Myeloradiculopathy is an uncommon presentation of NMO. If it is the initial presentation, it is imperative to check the antiaquaporin-4 antibody. In patients with diagnosed NMO/NMOSD, it is important to suspect conus lesions especially if presentation includes bowel, bladder, or sexual dysfunction. Conus lesions are overlooked as neuroimaging obtained typically in suspected NMO includes only the cervical and thoracic spinal cord looking for LETMs. In addition, lower motor neuron lesions are typically not suspected in NMOSD.
Disclosure: Dr. Sapnar has nothing to disclose. Dr. Prabhu has nothing to disclose.
Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.