European Spine Journal

, Volume 26, Issue 10, pp 2565–2572 | Cite as

Do we know the outcome predictors for cauda equine syndrome (CES)? A retrospective, single-center analysis of 60 patients with CES with a suggestion for a new score to measure severity of symptoms

  • Alexander König
  • Lisa Amelung
  • Marco Danne
  • Ullrich Meier
  • Johannes Lemcke
Original Article
  • 304 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

Despite the awareness and familiarity of almost every medical professional with the cauda equine compression syndrome (CES), risk factors for a poor prognosis of the disease remain elusive. Even the relationship between subsequent outcome and the time elapsed from the time of appearance of symptoms to surgery taking place remain obscure. The aim of our study, therefore, was to analyze a relatively large population of our own patients studied consecutively, to identify outcome predictors for CES and to propose a clinical score for CES symptoms (Berlin CES score).

Methods

We screened the hospital’s electronic database retrospectively for patients admitted with CES between 2001 and 2010. Since our hospital is a superregional trauma center with standardized emergency room procedures, all patients included in the study underwent the same routine. Using baseline data, we analyzed the following parameters: duration of symptoms, period of time between diagnosis and imaging, respectively, surgery; pre- and postoperative pain, motor deficits, reflex changes, urinary and bowl dysfunctions, reduced anal wink, saddle anesthesia, genital or perianal sensations and residual urine. The semi-quantitative assessment of the neurological outcome was performed by application of the Berlin CES score.

Results

Surprisingly, we were not able to identify any single parameters that could reliably predict the outcome of the disease. We were able to show statistically significant correlations between a high preoperatively Berlin CES score (i.e., a weighted summation of bladder dysfunction, rectal dysfunction, genital sensation, perianal sensation, rectal tone and saddle anesthesia) and a poor outcome regarding the postoperative existence of perianal (p < 0.001) and genital (p = 0.001) hypoesthesia, as well as reduced rectal tone (p = 0.0047). There was no significant interference of bladder or bowel function. Further analysis, in which we considered the time between diagnosis and surgery, revealed that both patients operated within 24 h and after 48 h could benefit from the intervention. Consequently, we were not able to show a correlation between speed of surgical treatment and outcome.

Conclusion

Although we analyzed a relatively large cohort, we were not able to identify single parameters that were capable of reliably predicting the outcome of patients with CES. Nonetheless, we were able to show that consideration of multiple parameters of symptomatology would enable an improvement in making a prognosis. In conclusion, we propose establishing a simple semi-quantitative clinical score of the main symptoms of CES.

Keywords

Cauda equina compression syndrome Berlin CES score Outcome predictors 

References

  1. 1.
    Ma B, Wu H, Jia LS, Yuan W, Shi GD, Shi JG (2009) Cauda equina syndrome: a review of clinical progress. Chin Med J (Engl) 122:1214–1222Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Podnar S, Oblak C, Vodusek DB (2002) Sexual function in men with cauda equina lesions: a clinical and electromyographic study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 73:715–720CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fuso FA, Dias AL, Letaif OB, Cristante AF, Marcon RM, de Barros TE (2013) Epidemiological study of cauda equina syndrome. Acta Ortop Bras 21:159–162. doi:10.1590/S1413-78522013000300006 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim JS, Lee SH, Arbatti NJ (2010) Dorsal extradural lumbar disc herniation causing cauda equina syndrome: a case report and review of literature. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 47:217–220. doi:10.3340/jkns.2010.47.3.217 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Todd NV (2009) Letter to the editor concerning “Cauda Equina Syndrome treated by surgical decompression: the influence of timing on surgical outcome” by Qureshi A, Sell P (2007) Eur Spine J 16:2143–2151. Eur Spine J 18:1391–1392; author reply 1393. doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-1039-0
  6. 6.
    Levis JT (2009) Cauda Equina syndrome. West J Emerg Med 10:20PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Busse JW, Bhandari M, Schnittker JB, Reddy K, Dunlop RB (2001) Delayed presentation of cauda equina syndrome secondary to lumbar disc herniation: functional outcomes and health-related quality of life. CJEM 3:285–291CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Srikandarajah N, Boissaud-Cooke MA, Clark S, Wilby MJ (2015) Does early surgical decompression in cauda equina syndrome improve bladder outcome? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:580–583. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000813 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aly TA, Aboramadan MO (2014) Efficacy of delayed decompression of lumbar disk herniation causing cauda equina syndrome. Orthopedics 37:e153–e156. doi:10.3928/01477447-20140124-18 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hakan T (2012) Lumbar disk herniation presented with cauda equina syndrome in a pregnant woman. J Neurosci Rural Pract 3:197–199. doi:10.4103/0976-3147.98243 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Andersen JC (2011) Is immediate imaging important in managing low back pain? J Athl Train 46:99–102. doi:10.4085/1062-6050-46.1.99 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fraser S, Roberts L, Murphy E (2009) Cauda equina syndrome: a literature review of its definition and clinical presentation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 90:1964–1968. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2009.03.021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwetlick G (1998) Microsurgery in lumbar disk operations. Possibilities, methods and results. Orthopade 27:457–465PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chang HS, Nakagawa H, Mizuno J (2000) Lumbar herniated disc presenting with cauda equina syndrome. Long-term follow-up of four cases. Surg Neurol 53:100–104 (discussion 105) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shapiro S (2000) Medical realities of cauda equina syndrome secondary to lumbar disc herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:348–351 (discussion 352) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dhatt S, Tahasildar N, Tripathy SK, Bahadur R, Dhillon M (2011) Outcome of spinal decompression in Cauda Equina syndrome presenting late in developing countries: case series of 50 cases. Eur Spine J 20:2235–2239. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1840-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shi J, Jia L, Yuan W, Shi G, Ma B, Wang B, Wu J (2010) Clinical classification of cauda equina syndrome for proper treatment. Acta Orthop 81:391–395. doi:10.3109/17453674.2010.483985 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Arrigo RT, Kalanithi P, Boakye M (2011) Is cauda equina syndrome being treated within the recommended time frame? Neurosurgery 68:1520–1526. doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e31820cd426 (discussion 1526) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Podnar S, Vodusek DB (2015) Lower urinary tract dysfunction in patients with peripheral nervous system lesions. Handb Clin Neurol 130:203–224. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-63247-0.00012-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCarthy MJ, Aylott CE, Grevitt MP, Hegarty J (2007) Cauda equina syndrome: factors affecting long-term functional and sphincteric outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:207–216. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000251750.20508.84 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Qureshi A, Sell P (2007) Cauda equina syndrome treated by surgical decompression: the influence of timing on surgical outcome. Eur Spine J 16:2143–2151. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0491-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kostuik JP, Harrington I, Alexander D, Rand W, Evans D (1986) Cauda equina syndrome and lumbar disc herniation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 68:386–391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Korse NS, Pijpers JA, van Zwet E, Elzevier HW, Vleggeert-Lankamp CL (2017) Cauda equina syndrome: presentation, outcome, and predictors with focus on micturition, defecation, and sexual dysfunction. Eur Spine J 26:894–904. doi:10.1007/s00586-017-4943-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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 (Phila Pa 1976) 25:1515–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Todd NV (2011) Causes and outcomes of cauda equina syndrome in medico-legal practice: a single neurosurgical experience of 40 consecutive cases. Br J Neurosurg 25:503–508. doi:10.3109/02688697.2010.550344 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jalloh I, Minhas P (2007) Delays in the treatment of cauda equina syndrome due to its variable clinical features in patients presenting to the emergency department. Emerg Med J 24:33–34. doi:10.1136/emj.2006.038182 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    O’Laoire SA, Crockard HA, Thomas DG (1981) Prognosis for sphincter recovery after operation for cauda equina compression owing to lumbar disc prolapse. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 282:1852–1854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fairbank J, Hashimoto R, Dailey A, Patel AA, Dettori JR (2011) Does patient history and physical examination predict MRI proven cauda equina syndrome? Evid Based Spine Care J 2:27–33. doi:10.1055/s-0031-1274754 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kennedy JG, Soffe KE, McGrath A, Stephens MM, Walsh MG, McManus F (1999) Predictors of outcome in cauda equina syndrome. Eur Spine J 8:317–322CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shephard RH (1959) Diagnosis and prognosis of cauda equina syndrome produced by protrusion of lumbar disk. Br Med J 2:1434–1439CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dinning TA, Schaeffer HR (1993) Discogenic compression of the cauda equina: a surgical emergency. Aust N Z J Surg 63:927–934CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Todd NV (2009) An algorithm for suspected cauda equina syndrome. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 91:358–359. doi:10.1308/003588409X428487 (author reply 359–360) CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ahn NU, Ahn UM, Nallamshetty L, Springer BD, Buchowski JM, Funches L, Garrett ES, Kostuik JP, Kebaish KM, Sponseller PD (2001) Cauda equina syndrome in ankylosing spondylitis (the CES-AS syndrome): meta-analysis of outcomes after medical and surgical treatments. J Spinal Disord 14:427–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hussain SA, Gullan RW, Chitnavis BP (2003) Cauda equina syndrome: outcome and implications for management. Br J Neurosurg 17:164–167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mangialardi R, Mastorillo G, Minoia L, Garofalo R, Conserva F, Solarino GB (2002) Lumbar disc herniation and cauda equina syndrome. Considerations on a pathology with different clinical manifestations. Chir Organi Mov 87:35–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McLaren AC, Bailey SI (1986) Cauda equina syndrome: a complication of lumbar discectomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 204:143–149Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Todd NV (2005) Cauda equina syndrome: the timing of surgery probably does influence outcome. Br J Neurosurg 19:301–306. doi:10.1080/02688690500305324 (discussion 307–308) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Korse NS, Nicolai MP, Both S, Vleggeert-Lankamp CL, Elzevier HW (2016) Discussing sexual health in spinal care. Eur Spine J 25:766–773. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-3991-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryUnfallkrankenhaus BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of NeurosurgeryKlinikum KarlsruheKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations