Aim To analyze the relationship between timing of surgery and outcome in patients with cauda equina syndrome caused by lumbar disc herniation. Methods A retrospective, non-randomized clinical study included 25 consecutive patients with cauda equina syndrome (CES) caused by lumbar disc herniation. All patients were operated within 24 hours after hospitalization at the Department of Neurosurgery, Cantonal Hospital Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina, between January 2000 and December 2010. All patients were evaluated before surgery on the basis of complete history, neurological examination and neuroimaging evaluations using CT (computed tomography) and MRI (magnetic resonance imaging). Results Statistically significant difference between preoperative and postoperative bladder (p=0.05) and bowel (p=0.05) function was found. A significant number of patients had bladder and bowel recovery after surgery, nine (36%) and 11 (44%), respectively. Significant recovery of muscle strength was noted with complete recovery (5/5) in 12 (48%) and partial recovery in 13 (52%) patients. Complete sensory recovery was noted in 16 (64%), incomplete in four (16%), and in five (20%) patients there were no changes. Most commonly, patients with complete sensory recovery were operated within 48 hours of symptom onset. In most patients early surgery was associated with better outcome. Conclusion This research showed that early decompression correlated with better outcome. Patients with cauda equina syndrome must be cleared for surgery in optimal conditions and, if it possible within optimal timing for recovery (within 48 hours).
Gleave J, Macfarlane R. Prognosis of recovery of bladder function following lumbar central disc prolapse. Br J Neurosurg. 1990. p. 205–10.
2.
Adam D, Hornea I. Cauda equina syndrome secondary to lumbar disc herniation. Romanian Neurosurgery. 2013. p. 258–63.
3.
Delong B, Polissar N, Neradilek B. Timing of surgery in cauda equina syndrome with urinary retention: meta -analysis of observational studies. JNS. 2008. p. 305–20.
4.
Başol B, Deniz F, Gökçe E, Şahin F. A young patient with acute cauda equina syndrome due to traumatic disc herniation. JAEMCR. 2015. p. 81–3.
5.
Gitelman A, Hishmeh S, Morelli B, Joseph S, Casden A, Kuflik P, et al. Cauda equine syndrome: a comprehensive review. Am J Orthop. 2008. p. 556–62.
6.
Nascone J, Lauerman W, Wiesel S. Cauda equina syndrome: is it a surgical emergency? The University of Pennsylvania Orthopedic. Journal. 1999. p. 73–6.
7.
Bin M, Hong W, Lian-Shun J, Wen Y, Guo-Dong S, Gang J, et al. Cauda equina syndrome: a review of clinical progress. Chin Med J. 2009. p. 1214–22.
8.
Paternostro-Sluga T, Grim-Stieger M, Posch M, Schuhfried O, Vacariu G, Mittermaier C, et al. Reliability and validity of the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale and a modified scale for testing muscle strength in patients with radial palsy. J Rehabil Med. 2008. p. 665–71.
9.
Maynard F, Bracken M, Creasey G, Ditunno J, Donovan W, Ducker T, et al. International standards for neurological and functional classification of spinal cord injury. Spinal cord. 1997. p. 266–74.
10.
Jun W, Yi-Jun K, Xiang-Sheng Z, Jing W. Cauda equina syndrome caused by a migrated bullet in dural sac. Turk Neurosurg. 2010. p. 566–9.
11.
Song H, Song Q, Sun C, Yu L, Wang Z, Li Y. Early surgery predicts a better prognosis of urinary function in cauda equina syndrome with retention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2016. p. 544–51.
12.
Kostuik J, Harrington I, Alexander D, Rand W, Evans D. Cauda equine syndrome and lumbar disc herniation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986. p. 386–91.
13.
Henriques T, Olerud C, Petren-Mallmin M, Ahl T. Cauda equina syndrome as a postoperative complication in five patients operated for lumbar disc herniation. Spine. 2001. p. 293–7.
14.
Gardner A, Gardner E, Morley T. Cauda equina syndrome: a review of the current clinical and medicolegal position. Eur Spine J. 2011. p. 690–7.
15.
Um A, Ahn N, Buchowski J, Garret E, Sieber A, Kostuik J. Cauda equina syndrome secondary to lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. Spine. 2000. p. 1515–22.
16.
Shapiro S. Medical realities of cauda equina syndrome secondary to lumbar disc herniation. Spine. 2000. p. 348–51.
17.
Lavy C, James A, Wilson-Macdonald J, Fairbank J. Cauda equina syndrome. BMJ. 2009. p. 881–4.
18.
Buchner M, Schiltenwolf M. Cauda equina syndrome caused by intervertebral disc prolapse: mild-term results of 22 patients and literature review. Orthopedics. 2002. p. 727–31.
19.
Celik E, Kabatas S, Karatas M. Atypical presentation of cauda equina syndrome secondary to lumbar disc herniation. Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation. 2012. p. 1–3.
20.
Nisaharan S, Alexander M, Simon C, John M. Does early surgical decompression in cauda equina syndrome improve bladder outcome. Spine. 2015. p. 580–3.
21.
Qureshi A, Sell P. Cauda equina syndrome treated by surgical decompression. The influence of timing on surgical outcome. Eur Spine J. 2007. p. 2143–51.
22.
Chau A, Xu L, Pelzer L, Gragnaniello N, C. Timing of surgical intervention in cauda equina syndrome: a systematic critical review. World Neurosurg. 2014. p. 640–50.
23.
Raj D, Coleman N. Cauda equina syndrome secondary to lumbar disc herniation. Acta Orthop Belg. 2008. p. 522–7.
24.
Hussain S, Gullan R, Chitnavis B. Cauda equina syndrome: outcome and implications for management. Br J Neurosurg. 2003. p. 164–7.
25.
Mcarthy M, Aylott C, Grevitt M, Hegarty J. Cauda equina syndrome: factors affecting long-term functional and sphincteric outcome. Spine. 2007. p. 207–16.
26.
Sonntag V. Why not decompress early? The cauda equina syndrome. World Neurosurg. 2014. p. 70–1.
27.
Lee K, Lim Y, Kim S. Prognostic factors of clinical outcome of postoperative cauda equina syndrome. J Korean Soc Spine Surg. 2014. p. 30–5.
28.
Dhatt S, Tahasildar N, Tripathy S, Bahadur R, Dhillon M. Outcome of spinal decompression in cauda equina syndrome presenting late in developing countries: case series of 50 cases. Eur Spine J. 2011. p. 2235–9.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
