The diagnostic sub-categorization of cauda equina syndrome (CES) is used to aid communication between doctors and other healthcare professionals. It is also used to determine the need for, and urgency of, MRI and surgery in these patients. A recent paper by Hoeritzauer et al (2023) in this journal examined the interobserver reliability of the widely accepted subcategories in 100 patients with cauda equina syndrome. They found that there is no useful interobserver agreement for the subcategories, even for experienced spinal surgeons. This observation is supported by the largest prospective study of the treatment of cauda equina syndrome in the UK by Woodfield et al (2023). If the accepted subcategories are unreliable, they cannot be used in the way that they are currently, and they should be revised or abandoned. This paper presents a reassessment of the diagnostic and prognostic subcategories of cauda equina syndrome in the light of this evidence, with a suggested cure based on a more inclusive synthesis of symptoms, signs, bladder ultrasound scan results, and pre-intervention urinary
Joint replacement of the hip and knee remain
very satisfactory operations. They are, however, expensive. The
actual manufacturing of the implant represents only 30% of the final
cost, while sales and marketing represent 40%. Recently, the patents
on many well established and successful implants have expired. Companies
have started producing and distributing implants that purport to
replicate existing implants with good long-term results. The aims of this paper are to assess the legality, the monitoring
and cost saving implications of such generic implants. We also assess
how this might affect the traditional orthopaedic implant companies. Cite this article:
This paper describes how we came to understand the pathophysiology of Volkmann’s ischaemic contracture with references to relevant papers in this Journal, and the investigation and management of acute compartment syndrome is briefly discussed.
