The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
has issued guidelines that state fusion for non-specific low back
pain should only be performed as part of a randomised controlled
trial, and that lumbar disc replacement should not be performed.
Thus, spinal fusion and disc replacement will no longer be routine
forms of treatment for patients with low back pain. This annotation
considers the evidence upon which these guidelines are based. Cite this article:
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:
