Cauda Equina Syndrome: A Review of Classification, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Best Practices.

IF 1.7 Q2 SURGERY JBJS Reviews Pub Date : 2025-02-12 eCollection Date: 2025-02-01 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.RVW.24.00156
Arjuna Karikaran, Austin H Carroll, Lancelot Benn, Nnaemeka Okorie, Christopher P Bellaire, Varun Puvanesarajah, Addisu Mesfin
{"title":"Cauda Equina Syndrome: A Review of Classification, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Best Practices.","authors":"Arjuna Karikaran, Austin H Carroll, Lancelot Benn, Nnaemeka Okorie, Christopher P Bellaire, Varun Puvanesarajah, Addisu Mesfin","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.RVW.24.00156","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a rare but life-altering disease resulting from compression of the nerve roots at the spinal cord's terminus. CES typically presents with low back pain, sciatica, sensorimotor deficits, and bowel and bladder dysfunction. Owing to its rarity, the condition is often missed, leading to significant morbidity and potential legal implications for physicians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review synthesizes the current literature on CES, including its epidemiology, pathophysiology, classifications, and management strategies. Emphasis is placed on the diagnosis and treatment of CES as well as the legal implications of CES for spine surgeons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The literature reveals variability in the reported prevalence of CES, with incidence rates ranging from 0.34 to 7 per 100,000 individuals annually. The timing of decompression remains debated. Some studies report no significant difference in outcomes between decompression within 24 hours vs. 48 hours, while others emphasize the importance of immediate intervention. Legal cases related to CES frequently involve delayed diagnosis, with significant ramifications for physicians.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Surgical decompression remains the definitive treatment of CES, though the timing of surgery requires careful consideration to balance the urgency of intervention with the risks of complications. Further research is needed to explore strategies that would allow for improvement in identifying and treating patients with CES in a timely manner.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":47098,"journal":{"name":"JBJS Reviews","volume":"13 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBJS Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.24.00156","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a rare but life-altering disease resulting from compression of the nerve roots at the spinal cord's terminus. CES typically presents with low back pain, sciatica, sensorimotor deficits, and bowel and bladder dysfunction. Owing to its rarity, the condition is often missed, leading to significant morbidity and potential legal implications for physicians.

Methods: This review synthesizes the current literature on CES, including its epidemiology, pathophysiology, classifications, and management strategies. Emphasis is placed on the diagnosis and treatment of CES as well as the legal implications of CES for spine surgeons.

Results: The literature reveals variability in the reported prevalence of CES, with incidence rates ranging from 0.34 to 7 per 100,000 individuals annually. The timing of decompression remains debated. Some studies report no significant difference in outcomes between decompression within 24 hours vs. 48 hours, while others emphasize the importance of immediate intervention. Legal cases related to CES frequently involve delayed diagnosis, with significant ramifications for physicians.

Conclusions: Surgical decompression remains the definitive treatment of CES, though the timing of surgery requires careful consideration to balance the urgency of intervention with the risks of complications. Further research is needed to explore strategies that would allow for improvement in identifying and treating patients with CES in a timely manner.

Level of evidence: Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JBJS Reviews
JBJS Reviews SURGERY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: JBJS Reviews is an innovative review journal from the publishers of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. This continuously published online journal provides comprehensive, objective, and authoritative review articles written by recognized experts in the field. Edited by Thomas A. Einhorn, MD, and a distinguished Editorial Board, each issue of JBJS Reviews, updates the orthopaedic community on important topics in a concise, time-saving manner, providing expert insights into orthopaedic research and clinical experience. Comprehensive reviews, special features, and integrated CME provide orthopaedic surgeons with valuable perspectives on surgical practice and the latest advances in the field within twelve subspecialty areas: Basic Science, Education & Training, Elbow, Ethics, Foot & Ankle, Hand & Wrist, Hip, Infection, Knee, Oncology, Pediatrics, Pain Management, Rehabilitation, Shoulder, Spine, Sports Medicine, Trauma.
期刊最新文献
Health Policy Challenges and Reforms: Critical Updates for Orthopaedic Surgeons. Older Patients May Fare Better Following Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Osteotomies of the Knee for Valgus Malalignment. The Mechanisms and Safety of Corticosteroid Injections in Orthopaedic Surgery. Cauda Equina Syndrome: A Review of Classification, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Best Practices.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1