Functional outcome of cauda equina syndrome treated by decompression and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 11 cases: a case series
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2455-4510.IntJResOrthop20251808Keywords:
Cauda equina syndrome, Oswestry disability index, Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusionAbstract
The unspecific description and definition of Cauda Equina syndrome (CES) in literature gives rise to a quantum of doubts regarding its decision making and management in clinical practice. Prospective analysis of 11 cases of CES, between Jan 2015 and Sep 2017, who had been treated with Decompression and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion, was done. The varied presentations were studied and the following parameters were assessed in the evaluation of the functional outcome of each patient: Pain (assessed by the VAS-Visual Analogue Scale), Motor status (assessed by the MRC grading), Bladder recovery (graded as per Gleave and Macfarlane) and the Oswestry Disability Index. Our analysis of the results supported the following points: Increased duration of symptoms had a negative effect on the ODI at 3 months and 1 year, the denser the neurological deficit, the worse was the ODI score at 3 months and 1 year; age>60 years had a negative effect on the ODI score at 3 months and 1 year, time to surgery since presentation had no significant effect on the overall functional outcome and ODI at 1 year, the mean VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) was drastically low at the end of 1 year with most of the patients almost free of back pain at the end of 1 year, bladder recovery was also related to the duration of symptoms and the age of the patient, as increasing age and longer duration of the deficits had a negative impact on the bladder recovery ultimately.
Metrics
References
Lavy C, James A, Wilson-MacDonald J, Fairbank J. Cauda equina syndrome. BMJ. 2009;338:936. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b936
Fraser S, Roberts L, Murphy E. Cauda equina syndrome: a literature review of its definition and clinical presentation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90:1964–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2009.03.021
Standards of care for established and suspected cauda equine syndrome. Available at: www.sbns.org.uk. Accessed on 15 January 2025.
Bell DA, Collie D, Statham PF. Cauda equina syndrome: what is the correlation between clinical assessment and MRI scanning. Br J Neurosurg. 2007;21:201–3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02688690701317144
Balasubramanian K, Kalsi P, Greenough CG, Kuskoor Seetharam MP. Reliability of clinical assessment in diagnosing cauda equina syndrome. Br J Neurosurg. 2010;24:383–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/02688697.2010.505987
Gleave JRW, Macfarlane R. Prognosis for recovery of bladder function following lumbar central disc prolapse. Br J Neurosurg. 1990;4:205-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/02688699008992725
Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine. 2000;25(22):2940-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017
Yang SD, Zhang F, Ding WY. Analysis of clinical and neurological outcomes in patients with cauda equina syndrome caused by acute lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective-prospective study. Oncotarget. 2017;8(48):84204–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.20453
Azimi P, Benzel EC, Montazeri A. Predictive Score Card in Lumbar Disc Herniation: Is It Reflective of Patient Surgical Success after Discectomy. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):154114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154114
Todd NV. Cauda equina syndrome: the timing of surgery probably does influence outcome. Br J Neurosurg. 2005;19:301–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02688690500305324
Chau AM, Xu LL, Pelzer NR, Gragnaniello C. Timing of surgical intervention in cauda equina syndrome: a systematic critical review. World Neurosurg. 2014;81:640–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2013.11.007
Ahn UM, Ahn NU, Buchowski JM, Garrett ES, Sieber AN, Kostuik JP. Cauda equina syndrome secondary to lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. Spine. 2000;25:1515–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200006150-00010
Kohles SS, Kohles DA, Karp AP, Erlich VM, Polissar NL. Time-dependent surgical outcomes following cauda equina syndrome diagnosis: comments on a meta-analysis. Spine. 2004;29:1281–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200406010-00019
DeLong WB, Polissar N, Neradilek B. Timing of surgery in cauda equina syndrome with urinary retention: meta-analysis of observational studies. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;8:305–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3171/SPI/2008/8/4/305
Bydon M, Gokaslan ZL. Time to treatment of cauda equina syndrome: a time to reevaluate our clinical decision. World Neurosurg. 2014;82:344–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2014.03.006
Sonntag VK. Why not decompress early? The cauda equina syndrome. World Neurosurg. 2014;82:70–1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2014.03.016
Todd NV. Cauda equina syndrome: findings on perineal examination. Br J Neurosurg 2013;27:852. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/02688697.2013.854310
Tod NV. Cauda Equina Syndrome. Bone Joint J. 2015;97(10):1390-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B10.35922
Qureshi A, Sell P. Cauda equina syndrome treated by surgical decompression: the influence of timing on surgical outcome. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(12):2143-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0491-y
McCarthy, Michael JH, Caspar EW, Michael P. Cauda equina syndrome: factors affecting long-term functional and sphincteric outcome. Spine. 2007;32(2):207-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000251750.20508.84
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
