Patients with cauda equina syndrome (CES) require emergency imaging and surgical decompression. The severity and type of symptoms may influence the timing of imaging and surgery, and help predict the patient’s prognosis. Categories of CES attempt to group patients for management and prognostication purposes. We aimed in this study to assess the inter-rater reliability of dividing patients with CES into categories to assess whether they can be reliably applied in clinical practice and in research. A literature review was undertaken to identify published descriptions of categories of CES. A total of 100 real anonymized clinical vignettes of patients diagnosed with CES from the Understanding Cauda Equina Syndrome (UCES) study were reviewed by consultant spinal surgeons, neurosurgical registrars, and medical students. All were provided with published category definitions and asked to decide whether each patient had ‘suspected CES’; ‘early CES’; ‘incomplete CES’; or ‘CES with urinary retention’. Inter-rater agreement was assessed for all categories, for all raters, and for each group of raters using Fleiss’s kappa.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to determine whether early surgical treatment results in better neurological recovery 12 months after injury than late surgical treatment in patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI). Patients with tSCI requiring surgical spinal decompression presenting to 17 centres in Europe were recruited. Depending on the timing of decompression, patients were divided into early (≤ 12 hours after injury) and late (> 12 hours and < 14 days after injury) groups. The American Spinal Injury Association neurological (ASIA) examination was performed at baseline (after injury but before decompression) and at 12 months. The primary endpoint was the change in Lower Extremity Motor Score (LEMS) from baseline to 12 months.Aims
Methods
Diagnosis of cauda equina syndrome (CES) remains difficult; clinical assessment has low accuracy in reliably predicting MRI compression of the cauda equina (CE). This prospective study tests the usefulness of ultrasound bladder scans as an adjunct for diagnosing CES. A total of 260 patients with suspected CES were referred to a tertiary spinal unit over a 16-month period. All were assessed by Board-eligible spinal surgeons and had transabdominal ultrasound bladder scans for pre- and post-voiding residual (PVR) volume measurements before lumbosacral MRI.Aims
Methods
There is no universally agreed definition of
cauda equina syndrome (CES). Clinical signs of CES including direct
rectal examination (DRE) do not reliably correlate with cauda equina (CE)
compression on MRI. Clinical assessment only becomes reliable if
there are symptoms/signs of late, often irreversible, CES. The only
reliable way of including or excluding CES is to perform MRI on
all patients with suspected CES. If the diagnosis is being considered,
MRI should ideally be performed locally in the District General
Hospitals within one hour of the question being raised irrespective
of the hour or the day. Patients with symptoms and signs of CES
and MRI confirmed CE compression should be referred to the local
spinal service for emergency surgery. CES can be subdivided by the degree of neurological deficit (bilateral
radiculopathy, incomplete CES or CES with retention of urine) and
also by time to surgical treatment (12, 24, 48 or 72 hour). There
is increasing understanding that damage to the cauda equina nerve roots
occurs in a continuous and progressive fashion which implies that
there are no safe time or deficit thresholds. Neurological deterioration
can occur rapidly and is often associated with longterm poor outcomes.
It is not possible to predict which patients with a large central
disc prolapse compressing the CE nerve roots are going to deteriorate neurologically
nor how rapidly. Consensus guidelines from the Society of British Neurological
Surgeons and British Association of Spinal Surgeons recommend decompressive
surgery as soon as practically possible which for many patients
will be urgent/emergency surgery at any hour of the day or night. Cite this article:
We assessed the frequency and causes of neurological
deterioration in 59 patients with spinal cord injury on whom reports
were prepared for clinical negligence litigation. In those who deteriorated
neurologically we assessed the causes of the change in neurology
and whether that neurological deterioration was potentially preventable.
In all 27 patients (46%) changed neurologically, 20 patients (74%
of those who deteriorated) had no primary neurological deficit.
Of those who deteriorated, 13 (48%) became Frankel A. Neurological
deterioration occurred in 23 of 38 patients (61%) with unstable
fractures and/or dislocations; all 23 patients probably deteriorated
either because of failures to immobilise the spine or because of
inappropriate removal of spinal immobilisation. Of the 27 patients who
altered neurologically, neurological deterioration was, probably,
avoidable in 25 (excess movement in 23 patients with unstable injuries,
failure to evacuate an epidural haematoma in one patient and over-distraction following
manipulation of the cervical spine in one patient). If existing
guidelines and standards for the management of actual or potential
spinal cord injury had been followed, neurological deterioration
would have been prevented in 25 of the 27 patients (93%) who experienced
a deterioration in their neurological status. Cite this article:
The belief that an intervertebral disc must degenerate
before it can herniate has clinical and
