Demographics of cauda equina syndrome: a population based incidence study

Introduction: Cauda Equina Syndrome (CES) has significant medical, social and legal consequences. Understanding the number of people presenting with CES and their demographic features is essential for planning healthcare services to ensure timely and appropriate management. We aimed to establish the incidence of CES in a single country and stratify incidence by age, gender, and socioeconomic status. As no consensus clinical definition of CES exists, we compared incidence using different diagnostic criteria. Methods: All patients presenting with radiological compression of the cauda equina due to degenerative disc disease and clinical CES requiring emergency surgical decompression during a one-year period were identified at all centers performing emergency spinal surgery across Scotland. Initial patient identification occurred during the emergency hospital admission, and case ascertainment was checked using ICD-10 diagnostic coding. Clinical information was reviewed and incidence rates for all demographic and clinical groups were calculated. Results: We identified 149 patients with CES in one year from a total population of 5.4 million, giving a crude incidence of 2.7 (95% CI: 2.3-3.2) per 100,000 per year. CES occurred more commonly in females and in the 30-49 year age range, with an incidence per year of 7.2 (95% CI 4.7-10.6) per 100,000 females age 30-39. There was no association between CES and socioeconomic status. CES requiring catheterisation had an incidence of 1.1 (95% CI: 0.8-1.5) per 100,000 adults per year. The use of ICD-10 codes alone to identify cases gave much higher incidence rates, but was inaccurate, with 55% (117/211) of patients with a new ICD-10 code for CES found not to have CES on clinical notes review. Conclusion: CES occurred more commonly in females and in those between 30-49 years, and had no association with socioeconomic status. The incidence of CES in Scotland is at least four times higher than previous European estimates of 0.3-0.6 per 100,000 population per year. Incidence varies with clinical diagnostic criteria. To enable comparison of rates of CES across populations, we recommend using standardised clinical and radiological criteria and standardisation for population structure

Cauda equina syndrome: poor inter-rater agreement for diagnostic categories

Aims: Patients with cauda equina syndrome (CES) require emergency imaging and surgical decompression. The severity and type of symptoms may influence the timing of imaging and surgery, and help predict the patient’s prognosis. Categories of CES attempt to group patients for management and prognostication purposes. We aimed in this study to assess the inter-rater reliability of dividing patients with CES into categories to assess whether they can be reliably applied in clinical practice and in research. Methods: A literature review was undertaken to identify published descriptions of categories of CES. A total of 100 real anonymized clinical vignettes of patients diagnosed with CES from the Understanding Cauda Equina Syndrome (UCES) study were reviewed by consultant spinal surgeons, neurosurgical registrars, and medical students. All were provided with published category definitions and asked to decide whether each patient had ‘suspected CES’; ‘early CES’; ‘incomplete CES’; or ‘CES with urinary retention’. Inter-rater agreement was assessed for all categories, for all raters, and for each group of raters using Fleiss’s kappa. Results: Each of the 100 participants were rated by four medical students, five neurosurgical registrars, and four consultant spinal surgeons. No groups achieved reasonable inter-rater agreement for any of the categories. CES with retention versus all other categories had the highest inter-rater agreement (kappa 0.34 (95% confidence interval 0.27 to 0.31); minimal agreement). There was no improvement in inter-rater agreement with clinical experience. Across all categories, registrars agreed with each other most often (kappa 0.41), followed by medical students (kappa 0.39). Consultant spinal surgeons had the lowest inter-rater agreement (kappa 0.17). Conclusion: Inter-rater agreement for categorizing CES is low among clinicians who regularly manage these patients. CES categories should be used with caution in clinical practice and research studies, as groups may be heterogenous and not comparable