XXXX associated with @entity9960 .

@entity1 @entity9598 @entity75 @entity12737 @entity602 @entity9960 @entity272
OBJECT: The coexistence of @entity602 ( @entity602 ) and @entity9960 ( @entity9960 ) can be misdiagnosed or ignored and can cause spinal cord tethering. The authors investigated cases involving the coexistence of @entity602 and @entity9960 in @entity1 from the @entity1 's Hospital Medical Center in Tehran. METHODS: Of the 330 @entity1 with @entity9960 who underwent operations at the @entity1 's Hospital Medical Center between January 2001 and June 2005, 33 (10%) had an associated SCM. These 33 cases were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Eighteen @entity1 (55%) were female, and the mean age of the @entity1 at presentation was 2.9 months. In 17 of the 33 @entity1 , the SCM occurred at the level of the neural placode. A Type I SCM was found in 26 @entity1 . Two @entity1 had @entity12737 . Eight @entity1 had unilateral leg paresis. The MMC sac was located in the lumbar region in 14 cases. Two @entity1 had double spinal dysraphism with meningoceles at the thoracic level. All @entity1 underwent simultaneous repair of both lesions at the time of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: @entity1 with @entity9960 , especially those with unusual manifestations such as @entity9598 or @entity272 , should undergo a preoperative clinical examination to check for the presence of an SCM. Use of spinal magnetic resonance imaging can help in identifying the associated abnormalities. The neural placode and the rostral and caudal spinal cord segments should be carefully inspected for @entity75 such as @entity602 during the operation to repair the MMC. In this paper, the authors hope to show the wisdom of identifying these anomalies at the time of the initial repair of the MMC.
