Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 20, Issue 12, pp 2235–2239 | Cite as

Outcome of spinal decompression in cauda equina syndrome presenting late in developing countries: case series of 50 cases

  • Sarvdeep DhattEmail author
  • Naveen Tahasildar
  • Sujit Kumar Tripathy
  • Raj Bahadur
  • Mandeep Dhillon
Original Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to find the clinical outcome of decompression of Cauda Equina presenting late in the course of disease. There were 33 males and 17 females with average age of 48 years, ranging from 25 to 85 years. All patients presented to us with a fully developed Cauda Equina syndrome (CES). All of them presented late with mean delay of 12.2 days. Time interval between bladder and bowel dysfunction and admission to hospital varied from 1 to 35 days. The average follow-up was 34.5 months, ranging from 12 to 60 months. There was no statistically significant difference in time of delay in surgery between the recovered and non-recovered group as tested by Student’s t test. But there was a statistically significant positive correlation between duration taken for total recovery and delay in surgery. Anal wink as a predictor of bladder and bowel recovery also showed statistical significance, as patients with an absence had a poorer prognosis for bladder recovery. The result of surgery in CES is not as dramatic and fast as seen after routine disc surgery. Some improvement can be expected with decompression even in those patients presenting late and results are not universally poor as previously thought. The treating physicians of such patients should be aware that the recovery in this group of patients can take an exceptionally long time and hence should involve in constant reassurance and rehabilitation of the patient. Presence of anal wink is a very good predictor of bladder and bowel recovery.

Keywords

Cauda Equina Disc prolapse Delayed presentation Developing countries Anal wink 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We thank Mr John Getty for his intellectual support during the preparation of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Mixter WJ, Barr JS (1934) Rupture of the intervertebral disc with involvement of the spinal cord. N Engl J Med 211:210–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tandon PN, Sankaran B (1967) Cauda Equina syndrome due to lumbar disc prolapse. Indian J Orthop 1:112–119Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kostuik JP, Harrington I, Alexander D et al (1986) Cauda Equina syndrome and lumbar disc herniation. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 68:386–391Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ahn UM, Ahn NU, Buchowski JM, Garrett ES, Sieber AN, Kostuik JP (2000) Cauda Equina syndrome secondary to lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. Spine 25(12):1515–1522 (ISSN: 0362-2436)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gleave JR, Macfarlane R (2002) Cauda Equina syndrome: what is the relationship between timing of surgery and outcome? Br J Neurosurg 16(4):325–328 (ISSN: 0268-8697)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alastair Gibson JN, Waddell Gordon (2007) Surgical interventions for lumbar disc prolapse; updated cochrane review. Spine 32:1735–1747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ahn UM, Ahn NU, Buchowski JM, et al. (2000) Cauda Equina syndrome secondary to lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. Spine 25:348-352Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shapiro S (1993) Cauda Equina syndrome secondary to disc herniation. Neurosurgery 32:743–747PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    O’Laoire SA, Crockard HA, Thomas DG (1981) Prognosis for sphincter recovery after operation for cauda equina compression owing to lumbar disc prolapse. British Med J 282:1852–1854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McCarthy MJH, Aylott CEW, Grevitt MP et al (2007) Cauda Equina syndrome: factors affecting long-term functional and sphincteric outcome. Spine 32(2):207–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Qureshi A, Sell P (2007) Cauda Equina syndrome treated by surgical decompression: the influence of timing on surgical outcome. Eur Spine J 16(12):2143–2151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Delamarter RB, Sherman JE, Carr JB (1991) Cauda Equina syndrome: neurologic recovery following immediate, early or late decompression. Spine 16:1022–1029PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dinning TAR, Schaeffer HR (1993) Discogenic compression of the Cauda Equina: a surgical emergency. Aust NZ J Surg 63:927–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robinson RG (1965) Massive protrusions of lumbar discs. British J Surg 523:858–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scott PJ (1965) Bladder paralysis in Cauda Equina lesions from disc prolapse. J Bone Joint Surg 47-B(2):224–235Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shapiro S (2000) Medical realities of Cauda Equina syndrome secondary to lumbar disc herniation. Spine 25:348–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hussain SA, Gullan RW, Chitnavis BP (2003) Cauda Equina syndrome: outcome and implications for management. Br J Neurosurg 17(2):164–167 (ISSN: 0268-8697)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarvdeep Dhatt
    • 1
    Email author
  • Naveen Tahasildar
    • 1
  • Sujit Kumar Tripathy
    • 1
  • Raj Bahadur
    • 2
  • Mandeep Dhillon
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsPostgraduate Institute of Medical Education and ResearchChandigarhIndia
  2. 2.Department of OrthopaedicsGovernment Medical CollegeChandigarhIndia

Personalised recommendations