Cauda equina syndrome.

Aims: Patients with cauda equina syndrome (CES) require emergency imaging and surgical decompression. The severity and type of symptoms may influence the timing of imaging and surgery, and help predict the patient's prognosis. Categories of CES attempt to group patients for management and prognostication purposes. We aimed in this study to assess the inter-rater reliability of dividing patients with CES into categories to assess whether they can be reliably applied in clinical practice and in research. Methods: A literature review was undertaken to identify published descriptions of categories of CES. A total of 100 real anonymized clinical vignettes of patients diagnosed with CES from the Understanding Cauda Equina Syndrome (UCES) study were reviewed by consultant spinal surgeons, neurosurgical registrars, and medical students. All were provided with published category definitions and asked to decide whether each patient had 'suspected CES'; 'early CES'; 'incomplete CES'; or 'CES with urinary retention'. Inter-rater agreement was assessed for all categories, for all raters, and for each group of raters using Fleiss's kappa. Results: Each of the 100 participants were rated by four medical students, five neurosurgical registrars, and four consultant spinal surgeons. No groups achieved reasonable inter-rater agreement for any of the categories. CES with retention versus all other categories had the highest inter-rater agreement (kappa 0.34 (95% confidence interval 0.27 to 0.31); minimal agreement). There was no improvement in inter-rater agreement with clinical experience. Across all categories, registrars agreed with each other most often (kappa 0.41), followed by medical students (kappa 0.39). Consultant spinal surgeons had the lowest inter-rater agreement (kappa 0.17). Conclusion: Inter-rater agreement for categorizing CES is low among clinicians who regularly manage these patients. CES categories should be used with caution in clinical practice and research studies, as groups may be heterogenous and not comparable.

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.

Demographics of Cauda Equina Syndrome: A Population-Based Incidence Study.

INTRODUCTION: Cauda equina syndrome (CES) has significant medical, social, and legal consequences. Understanding the number of people presenting with CES and their demographic features is essential for planning healthcare services to ensure timely and appropriate management. We aimed to establish the incidence of CES in a single country and stratify incidence by age, gender, and socioeconomic status. As no consensus clinical definition of CES exists, we compared incidence using different diagnostic criteria. METHODS: All patients presenting with radiological compression of the cauda equina due to degenerative disc disease and clinical CES requiring emergency surgical decompression during a 1-year period were identified at all centres performing emergency spinal surgery across Scotland. Initial patient identification occurred during the emergency hospital admission, and case ascertainment was checked using ICD-10 diagnostic coding. Clinical information was reviewed, and incidence rates for all demographic and clinical groups were calculated. RESULTS: We identified 149 patients with CES in 1 year from a total population of 5.4 million, giving a crude incidence of 2.7 (95% CI: 2.3-3.2) per 100,000 per year. CES occurred more commonly in females and in the 30-49 years age range, with an incidence per year of 7.2 (95% CI: 4.7-10.6) per 100,000 females age 30-39. There was no association between CES and socioeconomic status. CES requiring catheterization had an incidence of 1.1 (95% CI: 0.8-1.5) per 100,000 adults per year. The use of ICD-10 codes alone to identify cases gave much higher incidence rates, but was inaccurate, with 55% (117/211) of patients with a new ICD-10 code for CES found not to have CES on clinical notes review. CONCLUSION: CES occurred more commonly in females and in those between 30 and 49 years and had no association with socioeconomic status. The incidence of CES in Scotland is at least four times higher than previous European estimates of 0.3-0.6 per 100,000 population per year. Incidence varies with clinical diagnostic criteria. To enable comparison of rates of CES across populations, we recommend using standardized clinical and radiological criteria and standardization for population structure.

A systematic review identifying outcome measures used in evaluating adults sustaining cervical spine fractures.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcome measures used in studies investigating cervical spine fractures in adults, with or without associated spinal cord injury, to inform development of a core outcome set. METHODS: Medline, Embase and Scopus were searched for relevant studies until May 28, 2022, without a historic limit on study date. Study characteristics, population characteristics and outcomes reported were extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: Our literature search identified 536 studies that met criteria for inclusion, involving 393,266 patients. Most studies were single center (87.3%), retrospective studies (88.9%) and involved a median of 40 patients (range 6-167,278). Treatments assessed included: surgery (55.2%), conservative (6.2%), halo immobilization (4.9%), or a mixture (33.2%). Median study duration was 84 months (range 3-564 months); the timing of clinical and/or radiological follow-up assessment after injury was reported in 56.7%. There was significant heterogeneity in outcomes used, with 79 different reported outcomes measures. Differences in use were identified between smaller/larger, retro-/prospective and single/multicenter cohorts. Over time, the use of radiological outcomes has declined with greater emphasis on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Studies of conservative management were more likely to detail PROMs and mortality, whereas surgical studies reported Frankel/ASIA grade, radiological fusion, complication rates, duration of hospital stay and re-operation rates more frequently. In studies assessing the elderly population (> 65 years), use of PROMs, mortality, hospital stay and discharge destination were more common, whereas fusion was reported less often. Response rates for outcome assessments were lower in studies assessing elderly patients, and studies using PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: We have classified the various outcome measures used for patients with cervical spine fractures based on the COMET outcome taxonomy. We also described the contexts in which different outcomes are more commonly employed to help guide decision-making when designing future research endeavors.

What is the incidence of cauda equina syndrome? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a surgical emergency requiring timely operative intervention to prevent symptom progression. Accurately establishing the incidence of CES is required to inform healthcare service design and delivery, including out-of-hours imaging arrangements. METHODS: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus was undertaken to identify original studies stating the incidence of CES, and the estimates were combined in a meta-analysis as described in the protocol registered with PROSPERO (registration no. CRD42017065865) and reported using the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 1281 studies were identified, and 26 studies were included in the review. Data about CES incidence were available from 3 different populations: asymptomatic community populations, patients with nontraumatic low-back pain, and patients presenting as an emergency with suspected CES. The incidence of CES was 0.3-0.5 per 100,000 per year in 2 asymptomatic community populations, 0.6 per 100,000 per year in an asymptomatic adult population, and 7 per 100,000 per year in an asymptomatic working-age population. CES occurred in 0.08% of those with low-back pain presenting to primary care in 1 study, and a combined estimate of 0.27% was calculated for 4 studies of those with low-back pain presenting to secondary care. Across 18 studies of adults with suspected CES, 19% had radiological and clinical CES. Difficulties in comparison between studies resulted from the heterogeneous definitions of CES and lack of separation of more advanced CES with retention, which is unlikely to be reversible. In the studies of patients with suspected CES, the small sample size, the high number of single-center studies (18/18), the high number of studies from the United Kingdom (17/18), the retrospective nature of the studies, and the high number of abstracts rather than full texts (9/18) reduced the quality of the data. CONCLUSIONS: From current studies, it appears that CES occurs infrequently in asymptomatic community populations and in only 19% of those presenting with symptoms. Determining accurate incidence figures and designing a bespoke service for investigation of patients with suspected CES would require a consensus clinical and radiological definition of CES and international multisite studies of patient pathways of investigation and management.