Research Summary - 3
Ultrasound-guided cerebrospinal fluid collection at the atlantoaxial space in mature cattle with a comparative evaluation of lumbosacral cerebrospinal fluid collection
| Date/Time: |
9/13/2025
08:45
|
| Author: |
Jenna E Bayne |
| Clinic: |
Auburn University College of Veterinary Medicine |
| City, State, ZIP: |
Auburn, AL 36849 |
J Brozek , DVM
1
;
J.E. Bayne , DVM, PhD, DACVIM
1
;
E. Zuber , DVM
2
;
E. van Santen , PhD
3
;
R.C. Cole , DVM, DACVR, DACVR-EDI
1
;
1Department of Clinical Sciences, Auburn University College of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn, AL
2Department of Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University, Auburn, AL
3Statistical Consulting Unit, Institute of Food and Agricultural Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Introduction:
The introduction of an alternative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) collection site in equine practice at the atlantoaxial (AA) space has grown in popularity with increased proficiency and application of ultrasound-guided techniques. In cattle, CSF is routinely collected at the lumbosacral (LS) space or the atlantooccipital space, which requires general anesthesia. Although described in camelids, the technique has not been evaluated in cattle. The objectives of the present study were to demonstrate that ultrasound-guided AA CSF collection could be performed safely and reliably in standing beef cattle and that ultrasound guidance between the first and second cervical vertebrae (C1-C2, i.e., AA) would minimize iatrogenic blood contamination in samples compared to the LS centesis site.
Materials and methods:
Ten healthy mature mixed-breed beef cattle were enrolled in a prospective randomized crossover design study. Techniques evaluated were ultrasound-guided CSF collection at the atlantoaxial (AA) space and conventional collection at the lumbosacral (LS) space. Sample site collection and operator were randomized for each animal. Each site was sampled twice, and CSF samples were collected weekly. Cattle were restrained in a hydraulic squeeze chute, 10 to 20mg of acepromazine was administered intravenously, and the head was restrained with a halter for the AA collection. A technical difficulty scoring system was recorded at each collection. The CSF samples were cytologically evaluated for color, transparency, total protein concentration (TPC), total nucleated cell count (TNCC), and red blood cell count (RBCC). The cytological evaluation was performed by a clinical pathologist blinded to location and operator. Response variables were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models methodology as implemented in SAS® PROC GLIMMIX. Significance was set at p <0.05.
Results:
Of the 40 planned individual collections, 23 (12 AA, 11 LS) were obtained successfully. No significant differences between operators in performance metrics or the cytological analysis data were found. Means for AA and LS sites, respectively, for sample acquisition time (4.6 and 3.2 min), number of repositions (2.2 and 2.2), and difficulty score (2.3 and 2.2) were similar between the AA and LS approaches (all with p values >0.05). For cytological parameters, TNCC, RBCC, and TPC were significantly lower for the AA site than the LS site (p 0.0002, <0.0001, and 0.0285, respectively). No animal demonstrated any adverse signs in the 48-hour post-sample observation period.
Significance:
Although limited in study size, collection of CSF via ultrasound-guided AA puncture was successfully and safely performed in standing, well-restrained, lightly sedated healthy beef cattle. No significant differences in clinicopathological analyses, which would impact sample quality, were found between CSF collected at the AA versus the LS locations. The overall successful sample acquisition was similar between AA and LS site techniques.
