Abstract
Aims
The early diagnosis of cauda equina syndrome (CES) is crucial for a favourable outcome. Several studies have reported the use of an ultrasound scan of the bladder as an adjunct to assess the minimum post-void residual volume of urine (mPVR). However, variable mPVR values have been proposed as a threshold without consensus on a value for predicting CES among patients with relevant symptoms and signs. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis and systematic review of the published evidence to identify a threshold mPVR value which would provide the highest diagnostic accuracy in patients in whom the diagnosis of CES is suspected.
Methods
The search strategy used electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and AMED) for publications between January 1996 and November 2021. All studies that reported mPVR in patients in whom the diagnosis of CES was suspected, followed by MRI, were included.
Results
A total of 2,115 studies were retrieved from the search. Seven fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These included 1,083 patients, with data available from 734 being available for meta-analysis. In 125 patients, CES was confirmed by MRI. The threshold value of mPVR reported in each study varied and could be categorized into 100 ml, 200 ml, 300 ml, and 500 ml. From the meta-analysis, 200 ml had the highest diagnostic accuracy, with 82% sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.90) and 65% specificity (95% CI 0.70 to 0.90). When compared using summative receiver operating characteristic curves, mPVR of 200 ml was superior to other values in predicting the radiological confirmation of CES.
Conclusion
mPVR is a useful tool when assessing patients in whom the diagnosis of CES is suspected. Compared with other values a mPVR of 200 ml had superior sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. In a patient with a suggestive history and clinical findings, a mPVR of > 200 ml should further raise the suspicion of CES. Caution is recommended when considering the mPVR in isolation and using it as an ‘exclusion tool’, and it should only be used as an adjunct to a full clinical assessment.
Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):487–495.
