Long-term rates of bladder dysfunction after decompression in patients with cauda equina syndrome

Cauda Equina Syndrome: Cost Burden After Spinal Decompression

STUDY DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a rare neurologic condition with potentially devastating consequences. The objective of this study was to compare the 2-year postoperative cost-associated treatments after posterior spinal decompression between patients with and without CES.

METHODS

By analyzing a commercial insurance claims database, patients who underwent posterior spinal decompression with a concurrent diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis, radiculopathy, or disk herniation in 2017 were identified and included in the study. The primary outcome was the cost of payments for identified treatments in the 2-year period after surgery. Treatments included were (1) physical therapy (PT), (2) pain medication, (3) injections, (4) bladder management, (5) bowel management, (6) sexual dysfunction treatment, and (7) psychological treatment.

RESULTS

In total, 3,140 patients (age, 55.3 ± 12.0 years; male, 62.2%) were included in the study. The average total cost of treatments identified was $2,996 ± 6,368 per patient. The overall cost of identified procedures was $2,969 ± 6,356 in non-CES patients, compared with $4,535 ± 6,898 in patients with CES ( P = 0.079). Among identified treatments, only PT and bladder management costs were significantly higher for patients with CES (PT: +115%, P < 0.001; bladder management: +697%, P < 0.001). The difference in overall cost was significant between patients (non-CES: $1,824 ± 3,667; CES: $3,022 ± 4,679; P = 0.020) in the first year. No difference was found in the second year.

DISCUSSION

A short-term difference was observed in costs occurring in the first postoperative year. Cost of treatments was similar between patients apart from PT and bladder management.

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.

Cauda equina screening in Physiotherapy: A qualitative study of physiotherapists in a community musculoskeletal service: Are we asking the right questions and are we asking the questions right?

Cauda Equina Syndrome (CES) is a surgical emergency. With Physiotherapists increasingly taking on first-contact and spinal triage roles, screening for CES must be as thorough and effective as possible. This study explores whether Physiotherapists are asking the correct questions, in the correct way and investigates their experiences when screening for this serious condition. Thirty physiotherapists working in a community musculoskeletal service were purposively sampled and participated in semi-structured interviews. Data was transcribed and thematically analysed. All participants routinely asked bladder, bowel function and saddle anaesthesia screening questions although only 9 routinely asked about sexual function. Whether questions are asked in the correct way has never been studied. Sufficient depth of questioning, using lay terminology and explicit language was achieved by two-thirds of participants. Less than half of the participants framed the questions before asking them and only 5 participants combined all four dimensions. Whilst most clinicians felt comfortable asking general CES questions, half reported feeling uncomfortable when asking about sexual function. Issues around; gender, culture and language were also highlighted. Four main themes emerged from this study; i) Physiotherapists ask the right questions but frequently omit sexual function questions, ii) mostly, Physiotherapists ask CES questions in a way that patients understand however, there needs to be improvement in framing the context of the questions, iii) Physiotherapists generally feel comfortable with CES screening but there is some awkwardness surrounding discussion of sexual function and iv) Physiotherapists perceive there to be barriers to effective CES screening caused by culture and language.

Review/Perspective: Operations for Cauda Equina Syndromes - “The Sooner the Better”

Background:

Although most studies recommended that early surgery for cauda equina syndromes (CES) be performed within <48 h., the largest and most comprehensive Nationwide Inpatient Sample Database (NISC) series, involving over 25,000 CES patients recommended that time be shortened to 0–<24 h. In short, CES surgery performed “the sooner the better,” was best.

Methods:

The 2 major variants of CES include; incomplete/partial ICES, and those with urinary retention/bowel incontinence (RCES). Those with ICES often exhibit varying combinations of motor weakness, sensory loss (i.e. including perineal numbness), and urinary dysfunction, while RCES patients typically exhibit more severe paraparesis, sensory loss including saddle anesthesia, and urinary/bowel incontinence. The pathology responsible for ICES/RCES syndromes may include; acute disc herniations/stenosis, trauma (i.e. including iatrogenic/ surgical hematomas etc.), infections, abscesses, and other pathology. Surgery for either ICES/RCES may include decompressions to multilevel laminectomies/fusions.

Results:

Following early surgery, most studies showed that ICES and RCES patients exhibited improvement in motor weakness and sensory loss. However, recovery of sphincter function was more variable, being poorer for RCES patients with preoperative urinary retention/bowel incontinence.

Conclusions:

Although early CES surgery was defined in most studies as <48 h., two large NISC series involving over 25, 000 CES patients showed that CES surgery performed within 0 -< 24 h resulted in the best outcomes.