Cauda Equina Syndrome: Poor Recovery Prognosis Despite Early Treatment

The experience and need of patients with cauda equina syndrome caused by lumbar disc herniation: a phenomenological qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is an emergency disease that can lead to serious sequelae. The purpose of this study was to deeply understand the experience and need of patients with CES caused by lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

METHODS

Sixteen patients diagnosed as CES caused by LDH were enrolled. Descriptive phenomenology was used to collect data through semistructured face-to-face interviews. Colaizzi7's seven-step analysis method was used to sort out and code the original interview data to form the thematic framework.

RESULTS

Four themes were extracted from the interviews. The theme 1 was difficulty of disease recognition and doctor selection, the subtheme were Poor knowledge of the disease and the difficulty of choosing a hospital and department. The theme 2 was lacking of specialized information and misleading by misinformation, the subtheme were desire for information related to surgery and rehabilitation and misinformation affected the patients' decision-making. The theme 3 was coordination and process issues within health system, the subtheme were the sharing or mutual recognition of examination results and not clear about the medical insurance policy. The theme 4 was emotional response and psychological need, the subtheme were preoperative inner conflict, worry about the prognosis and desire for family and external support.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that CES patients faced complex challenges throughout the treatment process. These issues should be studied and solved in the future.

Appropriateness of lumbar spine imaging in patients presenting to the emergency department with low back pain in a Western Australian tertiary hospital

BACKGROUND

The Australian Rheumatology Association identified the use of imaging in patients with low back pain without indication of serious pathology as a low-value practice.

AIMS

To determine the appropriateness of diagnostic lumbar spine imaging requests in patients with low back pain presenting to a Western Australian hospital's emergency department.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of all adult patients (18 years and older) who presented with low back pain to the Fiona Stanley Hospital emergency department from 1 July 2020 to 31 December 2020. The appropriateness of the imaging requests was judged using the American College of Radiology's Appropriateness Criteria. The number and proportion of appropriate and inappropriate lumbar spine imaging requests were reported overall and by imaging modality together with reasons for the judgements.

RESULTS

A total of 1459 patients were included. Three hundred eight patients (21.1%) received lumbar spine imaging requests, with 350 diagnostic imaging requests eligible for analysis. Two hundred eighty (80.0%) imaging requests were judged to be appropriate (194/253 (76.7%) plain radiographs, 57/66 (86.4%) computed tomography, 29/31 (93.5%) magnetic resonance imaging). The most common reasons for an appropriate imaging request were suspected vertebral fracture (n = 223, 79.6%), followed by malignancy (n = 26, 9.3%). Of the 70 inappropriate imaging requests, 62 (88.6%) requests occurred in the absence of alerting features and eight (11.4%) requests were the wrong choice of modality.

CONCLUSIONS

Four in five lumbar spine imaging requests for investigating low back pain were appropriate. Of the inappropriate requests, the most common reason was the absence of alerting features, while a small number were the incorrect imaging modality.

Cauda equina, conus medullaris and syndromes mimicking sciatic pain: WFNS spine committee recommendations

Introduction

Cauda equina syndrome (CES), conus medullaris syndrome (CMS), and sciatica-like syndromes or "sciatica mimics" (SM) may present as diagnostic and/or therapeutic dilemmas for the practicing spine surgeon. There is considerable controversy regarding the appropriate definition and diagnosis of these entities, as well as indications for and timing of surgery. Our goal is to formulate the most current, evidence-based recommendations for the definition, diagnosis, and management of CES, CMS, and SM syndromes.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed from 2012 to 2022 using the keywords "cauda equina syndrome", "conus medullaris syndrome", "sciatica", and "sciatica mimics". Standardized screening criteria yielded a total of 43 manuscripts, whose data was summarized and presented at two international consensus meetings of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS) Spine Committee. Utilizing the Delphi method, we generated seven final consensus statements.

Results and conclusion

s: We provide standardized definitions of cauda equina, cauda equina syndrome, conus medullaris, and conus medullaris syndrome. We advocate for the use of the Lavy et al classification system to categorize different types of CES, and recommend urgent MRI in all patients with suspected CES (CESS), considering the low sensitivity of clinical examination in excluding CES. Surgical decompression for CES and CMS is recommended within 48 h, preferably within less than 24 h. There is no data regarding the role of steroids in acute CES or CMS. The treating physician should be cognizant of a variety of other pathologies that may mimic sciatica, including piriformis syndrome, and how to manage these.

Early experience of a local pathway on the waiting time for MRI in patients presenting to a UK district general hospital with suspected cauda equina syndrome

AIM

This study evaluated the impact of the Salisbury Protocol for Assessment of Cauda Equina Syndrome (SPACES) on the waiting time for MRI in patients presenting with suspected Cauda Equina Syndrome (sCES) within a UK district general hospital.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing an MRI scan in our hospital, for sCES, over a 12 month period, prior to and following the introduction of SPACES, were identified. Patient's gender, age, MRI diagnosis, time from MRI request to imaging and outcome were recorded.

RESULTS

In the year prior to the introduction of SPACES, 66 patients underwent MRI for sCES, out of which 10.6% had cauda equina compression (CEC), 63.5% had other spinal pathology and 25% had a normal scan. In the year after introduction of SPACES, 160 patients underwent MRI for sCES out of which 6.2% had CEC, 70.7% had other spinal pathology and 23% had a normal scan. Despite the referrals for sCES increasing by more than 2-fold following the introduction of SPACES, the median time from MRI request to scan decreased from 9.1 to 4.2 hours (p = 0.106, Mann-Whitney-U) and the number of patients transferred to the regional hub hospital decreased from 7 to 3.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of SPACES for patients with sCES resulted in a substantial reduction in waiting time for MRI and decreased the number of transfers to the regional hub hospital. Based on our early experience, we encourage other centres within the UK to introduce such a pathway locally, to improve the management of patients with sCES.

Presentation, management, and outcomes of cauda equina syndrome up to one year after surgery, using clinician and participant reporting: A multi-centre prospective cohort study

Background

Cauda equina syndrome (CES) results from nerve root compression in the lumbosacral spine, usually due to a prolapsed intervertebral disc. Evidence for management of CES is limited by its infrequent occurrence and lack of standardised clinical definitions and outcome measures.

Methods

This is a prospective multi-centre observational cohort study of adults with CES in the UK. We assessed presentation, investigation, management, and all Core Outcome Set domains up to one year post-operatively using clinician and participant reporting. Univariable and multivariable associations with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and urinary outcomes were investigated.

Findings

In 621 participants with CES, catheterisation for urinary retention was required pre-operatively in 31% (191/615). At discharge, only 13% (78/616) required a catheter. Median time to surgery from symptom onset was 3 days (IQR:1–8) with 32% (175/545) undergoing surgery within 48 h. Earlier surgery was associated with catheterisation (OR:2.2, 95%CI:1.5–3.3) but not with admission ODI or radiological compression. In multivariable analyses catheter requirement at discharge was associated with pre-operative catheterisation (OR:10.6, 95%CI:5.8–20.4) and one-year ODI was associated with presentation ODI (r = 0.3, 95%CI:0.2–0.4), but neither outcome was associated with time to surgery or radiological compression. Additional healthcare services were required by 65% (320/490) during one year follow up.

Interpretation

Post-operative functional improvement occurred even in those presenting with urinary retention. There was no association between outcomes and time to surgery in this observational study. Significant healthcare needs remained post-operatively.

Funding

DCN Endowment Fund funded study administration. Castor EDC provided database use. No other study funding was received.