Presentation, management, and outcomes of cauda equina syndrome up to one year after surgery, using clinician and participant reporting: A multi-centre prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Cauda equina syndrome (CES) results from nerve root compression in the lumbosacral spine, usually due to a prolapsed intervertebral disc. Evidence for management of CES is limited by its infrequent occurrence and lack of standardised clinical definitions and outcome measures. METHODS: This is a prospective multi-centre observational cohort study of adults with CES in the UK. We assessed presentation, investigation, management, and all Core Outcome Set domains up to one year post-operatively using clinician and participant reporting. Univariable and multivariable associations with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and urinary outcomes were investigated. FINDINGS: In 621 participants with CES, catheterisation for urinary retention was required pre-operatively in 31% (191/615). At discharge, only 13% (78/616) required a catheter. Median time to surgery from symptom onset was 3 days (IQR:1-8) with 32% (175/545) undergoing surgery within 48 h. Earlier surgery was associated with catheterisation (OR:2.2, 95%CI:1.5-3.3) but not with admission ODI or radiological compression. In multivariable analyses catheter requirement at discharge was associated with pre-operative catheterisation (OR:10.6, 95%CI:5.8-20.4) and one-year ODI was associated with presentation ODI (r = 0.3, 95%CI:0.2-0.4), but neither outcome was associated with time to surgery or radiological compression. Additional healthcare services were required by 65% (320/490) during one year follow up. INTERPRETATION: Post-operative functional improvement occurred even in those presenting with urinary retention. There was no association between outcomes and time to surgery in this observational study. Significant healthcare needs remained post-operatively. FUNDING: DCN Endowment Fund funded study administration. Castor EDC provided database use. No other study funding was received

More questions than answers to the diagnosis and management of cauda equina syndrome—Authors’ reply

No abstract available

Cauda equina syndrome

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