Specific spinal pathologies in adult patients with an acute or subacute atraumatic low back pain in the emergency department

Red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain is a common presentation across different healthcare settings. Clinicians need to confidently be able to screen and identify people presenting with low back pain with a high suspicion of serious or specific pathology (e.g. vertebral fracture). Patients identified with an increased likelihood of having a serious pathology will likely require additional investigations and specific treatment. Guidelines recommend a thorough history and clinical assessment to screen for serious pathology as a cause of low back pain. However, the diagnostic accuracy of recommended red flags (e.g. older age, trauma, corticosteroid use) remains unclear, particularly those used to screen for vertebral fracture.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of red flags used to screen for vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. Where possible, we reported results of red flags separately for different types of vertebral fracture (i.e. acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture, vertebral traumatic fracture, vertebral stress fracture, unspecified vertebral fracture).

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 July 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered primary diagnostic studies if they compared results of history taking or physical examination (or both) findings (index test) with a reference standard test (e.g. X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), single-photon emission computerised tomography (SPECT)) for the identification of vertebral fracture in people presenting with low back pain. We included index tests that were presented individually or as part of a combination of tests.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data for diagnostic two-by-two tables from the publications or reconstructed them using information from relevant parameters to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and positive (+LR) and negative (-LR) likelihood ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We extracted aspects of study design, characteristics of the population, index test, reference standard, and type of vertebral fracture. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of studies and index tests, therefore the analysis was descriptive. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and LRs for each test and used these as an indication of clinical usefulness. Two review authors independently conducted risk of bias and applicability assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool.

MAIN RESULTS

This review is an update of a previous Cochrane Review of red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in people with low back pain. We included 14 studies in this review, six based in primary care, five in secondary care, and three in tertiary care. Four studies reported on 'osteoporotic vertebral fractures', two studies reported on 'vertebral compression fracture', one study reported on 'osteoporotic and traumatic vertebral fracture', two studies reported on 'vertebral stress fracture', and five studies reported on 'unspecified vertebral fracture'. Risk of bias was only rated as low in one study for the domains reference standard and flow and timing. The domain patient selection had three studies and the domain index test had six studies rated at low risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of the data. Results from single studies suggest only a small number of the red flags investigated may be informative. In the primary healthcare setting, results from single studies suggest 'trauma' demonstrated informative +LRs (range: 1.93 to 12.85) for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 6.42, 95% CI 2.94 to 14.02). Results from single studies suggest 'older age' demonstrated informative +LRs for studies in primary care for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (older age greater than 70 years: 11.19, 95% CI 5.33 to 23.51). Results from single studies suggest 'corticosteroid use' may be an informative red flag in primary care for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR range: 3.97, 95% CI 0.20 to 79.15 to 48.50, 95% CI 11.48 to 204.98) and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 2.46, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.34); however, diagnostic values varied and CIs were imprecise. Results from a single study suggest red flags as part of a combination of index tests such as 'older age and female gender' in primary care demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (16.17, 95% CI 4.47 to 58.43). In the secondary healthcare setting, results from a single study suggest 'trauma' demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR: 2.18, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.54) and 'older age' demonstrated informative +LRs for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (older age greater than 75 years: 2.51, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.27). Results from a single study suggest red flags as part of a combination of index tests such as 'older age and trauma' in secondary care demonstrated informative +LRs for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' (+LR: 4.35, 95% CI 2.92 to 6.48). Results from a single study suggest when '4 of 5 tests' were positive in secondary care, they demonstrated informative +LRs for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' (+LR: 9.62, 95% CI 5.88 to 15.73). In the tertiary care setting, results from a single study suggest 'presence of contusion/abrasion' was informative for 'vertebral compression fracture' (+LR: 31.09, 95% CI 18.25 to 52.96).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that only a few red flags are potentially useful in guiding clinical decisions to further investigate people suspected to have a vertebral fracture. Most red flags were not useful as screening tools to identify vertebral fracture in people with low back pain. In primary care, 'older age' was informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture', and 'trauma' and 'corticosteroid use' were both informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture' and 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture'. In secondary care, 'older age' was informative for 'osteoporotic vertebral fracture' and 'trauma' was informative for 'unspecified vertebral fracture'. In tertiary care, 'presence of contusion/abrasion' was informative for 'vertebral compression fracture'. Combinations of red flags were also informative and may be more useful than individual tests alone. Unfortunately, the challenge to provide clear guidance on which red flags should be used routinely in clinical practice remains. Further research with primary studies is needed to improve and consolidate our current recommendations for screening for vertebral fractures to guide clinical care.

Characteristics and clinical features of cauda equina syndrome: insights from a study on 256 patients

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency, clinical presentation, and etiological factors of cauda equina syndrome (CES).

MATERIALS AND METHOD

This retrospective study was done on 256 participants, and aimed to analyze the frequency and patterns of clinical presentation in suspected cases of CES. The inclusion criteria included participants aged 18 or older with medical records available for review and having red-flagged symptoms for CES. The study collected information on various factors such as age, gender, confirmation of CES on MRI, neurological deficits, etiological factors, duration of symptoms, and more. The data collected was analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression to identify significant variables between MRI-proven CES and suspected CES.

RESULTS

The mean age was 58.05 ± 19.26 years, with 151 females (58.98%) and 105 males (41.02%). The majority (50.78%) had a neurological deficit, while other symptoms included difficulty initiating micturition or impaired sensation of urinary flow (17.58%), loss of sensation of rectal fullness (3.12%), urinary or faecal incontinence (35.16%), bilateral sciatica (21.88%), neurological symptoms in the lower limbs (25.00%), anaesthesia or any leg weakness (24.22%), and bilateral sciatica as the predominant symptom (21.88%). Symptoms were chronic in 47.27% and acute in 21.88%. The odds of MRI-proven CES increase by 3% per year of age. Neurological deficit was strongly associated with MRI-proven CES (OR = 14.97), while loss of sensation of rectal fullness increased the odds by 10-fold (OR = 10.62).

CONCLUSION

CES can present with various symptoms, including the bilateral neurological deficit, urinary and faecal incontinence, and bilateral sciatica, with age, severe bilateral neurological deficit, and loss of sensation of rectal fullness being associated with MRI-proven CES. Early diagnosis and treatment are crucial for better outcomes.

Evaluation of the role of anal tone and perianal sensation examination in the assessment of suspected cauda equina syndrome

PURPOSE

Cauda equina syndrome (CES) can present with a varied constellation of clinical signs and symptoms, which together with the time-sensitive nature of the condition and risk of catastrophic clinical outcome, presents a significant challenge to those assessing patients with this suspected diagnosis. Anal tone is commonly tested during initial assessment using a digital rectal examination (DRE). This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic value of anal tone and perianal sensation assessment in patients with suspected CES and report modern prevalence data on CES within a neurosciences centre.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients with suspected CES presenting over three years to the Emergency Department (ED) of a busy tertiary centre were included in the study. History and examination findings, documented in the ED notes, were assessed and these variables were correlated with the presence or absence of cauda equina compression on subsequent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

RESULTS

Out of 1005 patients with suspected CES, 117 (11.6%) had MRI confirmed cauda equina compression (MRI + ve CES). 35% of MRI + ve patients and 31% of MRI -ve patients had reduced anal tone. Using univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses, no associations were found between abnormal anal tone and MRI + ve CES for patients of all ages. The univariate logistic regression analysis identified altered perianal sensation to be significantly associated with MRI + ve CES in patients ≤42 years old. This association was no longer present when an adjusted multivariable logistic regression was performed.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of MRI + ve CES was 11.6%. Our findings suggest that the clinical finding of reduced anal tone has no demonstrable diagnostic value for those with suspected CES, either in itself or in combination with other clinical findings. Further studies are needed to confirm the diagnostic efficacy of assessing perianal sensation in this context.

Priapism, a symptom of claudication of the cauda equina in spinal stenosis

Priapism is defined as a persistent penile erection in the absence of sexual arousal. This symptom has been documented in patients with spinal stenosis although it is considered a rare finding. The European Association of Urology guidelines on priapism [Salonia et al., 2014] list cauda equina syndrome and spinal stenosis as causative factors for ischemic priapism although the literature describing this phenomenon appears sparse. Priapism can be a rare symptom of lumbar spine stenosis/transient cauda equina compression. This presentation is complex and believed to be a parasympathetic mediated autonomic disorder. This article discusses the relationship between spinal stenosis, cauda equina syndrome and priapism using available literature. Greater awareness of this clinical finding may help clinicians in their clinical decision making. In patients with suspected cauda equina syndrome, subjective enquiry regarding the symptom priapism may add to the patients overall clinical picture.

Role of C-reactive protein in effective utilization of emergent MRI for spinal infections

PURPOSE

Emergent spinal MRI is recommended for patients with back pain and red flags for infection. However, many of these studies are negative due to low prevalence of spinal infections. Our purpose was to assess if C-reactive protein (CRP) can be used to guide effective utilization of emergent MRI for spinal infections.

METHODS

316/960 (33%) MRIs performed for infection by the emergency department over 75-month period had CRP levels obtained at presentation, after excluding patients receiving antibiotic or had spinal surgery in < 1 month. An MRI was considered positive when there was imaging evidence of spinal infection confirmed on follow-up by surgery/biopsy/drainage or definitive therapy. A CRP of ≤ 10 mg/L was considered normal and > 100 mg/L as highly elevated.

RESULTS

CRP was normal in 95/316 (30%) and abnormal in 221/316 (70%) patients. MRI was positive in 43/316 (13.6%) patients, all of whom had abnormal CRP. CRP (p < 0.001) and intravenous drug use (IVDU; p = 0.002) were independently associated with a positive MRI. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis showed AUC of 0.76 for CRP, slightly improving with IVDU. Sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values for CRP level cut-off: 10 mg/L, 100%, 35%, and 100%, and 100 mg/L, 58%, 70% and 91%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Abnormal CRP, although extremely sensitive, lacks specificity in predicting a positive MRI for spinal infection unless highly elevated. However, a normal CRP (absent recent antibiotic or surgery) makes spinal infection unlikely, and its routine use as a screening test can help reducing utilization of emergent MRI for this purpose.

30-Day Recurrence, Readmission Rate, and Clinical Outcome After Emergency Lumbar Discectomy

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the 30-day recurrence rate after emergency lumbar discectomy. Secondary aims were to investigate the factors affecting the 30-day recurrence and readmission rates and clinical outcome.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Excluding cauda equine syndrome (CES) due to massive intervertebral disc herniation, emergency surgery for lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is rarely required. The operation may, however, be performed for other reasons such as persistent or progressive motor paresis associated with radiculopathy or uncontrolled pain. Literature on these topics is scarce.

METHODS

All patients admitted for inpatient care after a visit to the emergency department (ED) due to acute low back pain and who had subsequently undergone an emergency lumbar discectomy during the 4-year study period were included in the study. Patients attending the ED who subsequently had a delayed discectomy formed the control group. Recurrence and readmission rates were analyzed and clinical outcome at 30 days post-surgery was assessed with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the visual analog pain scale (VAS).

RESULTS

One hundred thirty patients were admitted to the hospital after visiting the ED and underwent an emergency discectomy after a median of 1.0 days from admittance. Six patients in the study group [4.6% (95% CI: 2.1-9.7)] had recurrent LDH and nine patients in total [6.9% (95% CI: 3.9-12.6)] were readmitted within 30 days. None of the baseline variables clearly predicted recurrence. Mean ODI difference between the study group and controls was 8.1 (95% CI: -6.7-23.2). BMI and surgery by a non-spine surgeon were associated with higher ODI values.

CONCLUSION

An emergency discectomy is associated with a higher rate than expected of both recurrent LDHs and 30-day readmissions. Surgeon experience and patient-related factors had minor effects on the 30-day clinical outcome.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Percutaneous endoscopic debridement with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for lumbar pyogenic spondylodiscitis: a preliminary study

PURPOSE

To access the feasibility and efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic debridement (PED) combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) in the treatment of lumbar pyogenic spondylodiscitis.

METHODS

Forty-five patients diagnosed as pyogenic spondylodiscitis underwent PPSF followed by PED. A drainage catheter was left in place for negative pressure drainage. Adequate systematic antibiotics were administered empirically or based on bacterial culture results. Clinical outcomes were assessed by physical examination, regular serologic testing, visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and imaging studies.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 110.1 ± 21.2 minutes (range 80-165 minutes), with intra-operative blood loss 47.8 ± 21.0 ml (range 20-120 ml). All patients reported relief of back pain, able to sit up, and partially ambulate the next day. Causative pathogens were identified in 32 of 45 biopsy specimens, staphylococcal bacteria being the most prevalent strain. However, there were 13 patients with post-operative complications. During 6-12 months' follow-up, inflammatory markers showed infection controlled. VAS and ODI values were significantly improved.

DISCUSSION

Satisfactory clinical and functional outcomes were achieved in our patients post-operatively. It is recommended that PED plus PPSF can be another alternative for spondylodiscitis.

CONCLUSION

PED supplementing PPSF offers a valid option in treating spondylodiscitis, as it is minimally invasive, shortens hospital stay, and avoids prolonged bed rest with an optimistic outcome.

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.

Low Back Pain in the Emergency Department: Prevalence of Serious Spinal Pathologies and Diagnostic Accuracy of Red Flags

BACKGROUND

Very little evidence is available on the prevalence of serious spinal pathologies and the diagnostic accuracy of red flags in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). This systematic review aims to investigate the prevalence of serious spinal pathologies and the diagnostic accuracy of red flags in patients presenting with low back pain to the ED.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS from inception to January 2019. Two reviewers independently reviewed the references and evaluated methodological quality.

RESULTS

We analyzed 22 studies with a total of 41,320 patients. The prevalence of any requiring immediate/urgent treatment was 2.5%-5.1% in prospective and 0.7%-7.4% in retrospective studies (0.0%-7.2% for vertebral fractures, 0.0%-2.1% for spinal cancer, 0.0%-1.9% for infectious disorders, 0.1%-1.9% for pathologies with spinal cord/cauda equina compression, 0.0%-0.9% for vascular pathologies). Examples of red flags which increased the likelihood for a serious condition were suspicion or history of cancer (spinal cancer); intravenous drug use, indwelling vascular catheter, and other infection site (epidural abscess).

CONCLUSION

We found a higher prevalence of serious spinal pathologies in the ED compared to the reported prevalence in primary care settings. As the diagnostic accuracy of most red flags was reported only by a single study, further validation in high-quality prospective studies is needed.

Orthopedic Professionals' Recognition and Knowledge of Pain and Perceived Barriers to Optimal Pain Management at Five Hospitals

Pain is a challenge for orthopedic healthcare professionals (OHCP). However, pain studies examined the competencies of a single OHCP category, did not consider various pain management domains or barriers to optimal pain service, and are deficient across the Arabic Eastern Mediterranean region. We surveyed OHCP's recognition and knowledge of pain and perceived barriers to optimal pain service (361 OHCP, five hospitals). Chi square compared doctors' (n = 63) vs. nurses/physiotherapists' (n = 187) views. In terms of pain recognition, more nurses had pain management training, confidently assessed pediatric/elderly pain, were aware of their departments' pain protocols, and felt that their patients receive proper pain management. More doctors comfortably prescribed opiate medications and agreed that some nationalities were more sensitive to pain. For pain knowledge, more nurses felt patients are accurate in assessing their pain, vital signs are accurate in assessing children's pain, children feel less pain because of nervous system immaturity, narcotics are not preferred due respiratory depression, and knew pre-emptive analgesia. As for barriers to optimal pain service, less nurses agreed about the lack of local policies/guidelines, knowledge, and skills; time to pre-medicate patients; knowledge about medications; complexity of the clinical environment; and physicians being not comfortable prescribing pain medication. We conclude that doctors required confidence in pain, especially pediatric and geriatric pain, using vital signs in assessing pain and narcotics use. Their most perceived barriers were lack of local policies/guidelines and skills. Nurses required more confidence in medications, caring for patients on narcotics, expressed fewer barriers than doctors, and the complexity of the clinical environment was their highest barrier. Educational programs with clinical application could improve OHCPs' pain competencies/clinical practices in pain assessment and administration of analgesics.