EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 9 (2023) SICOT-J, 9 (2023) 22 Full HTML
Open Access
Issue
SICOT-J
Volume 9, 2023
Article Number 22
Number of page(s) 6
Section Spine
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2023019
Published online 19 July 2023

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2023

Licence Creative CommonsThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Introduction

Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a rare but serious neurological condition that occurs when the bundle of nerve roots at the bottom of the spinal cord, known as the cauda equina, is compressed or damaged [1]. CES is typically marked by several key symptoms, commonly referred to as “red flags”, including severe lower back pain, bilateral or absent sciatica, sensory disturbances in the saddle and/or genital area, and dysfunction of the bladder, bowel, and sexual organs [2].

Diagnosis of CES is typically made through a combination of physical exams, imaging studies, and nerve function tests. A systemic review showed that currently, there is no consensus on clinical diagnostic criteria for CES [3]. The lack of clear diagnostic criteria for CES and common symptoms in the population leads to low CES diagnosis rates on MRI when suspected, making it challenging to accurately diagnose and potentially resulting in delayed treatment and negative outcomes for patients [4, 5].

Earlier investigations have documented the occurrence frequencies of CES, which have varied from 0.3 to 7.0 cases per 100,000 individuals annually [1]. A systematic review including four studies aimed to determine if elements from the history or physical examination are associated with CES as established by MRI. Their results showed that the average prevalence of CES, diagnosed by MRI, ranged from 14% to 48% among patients. And no signs and symptoms were diagnostics for CES diagnosis [6].

The literature commonly reports back pain, bowel incontinence, bilateral sciatica, bladder incontinence, bladder retention, decreased urinary sensation, and frequent urination as symptoms of CES [7–9]. Additionally, CES is frequently associated with saddle numbness, reduced anal tone, decreased ankle reflex, and loss of power [10].

CES is a rare but potentially devastating condition that can result in permanent neurological damage if not promptly diagnosed and treated. Understanding the frequency, clinical presentation and underlying causes of this syndrome is crucial for healthcare providers to identify and manage cases effectively. Therefore, the rationale for this retrospective study is to provide insights into the epidemiology, clinical features, and etiological factors of CES, which could help improve its diagnosis and management in clinical practice. By examining a large number of cases retrospectively, this study can provide a comprehensive understanding of the characteristics and outcomes of CES and ultimately contribute to better clinical decision-making and patient care.

The purpose of this study was to ascertain the frequency, clinical presentation, and etiological factors of CES.

Methodology

This retrospective observational study was conducted on 256 participants at the Department of Orthopaedics, Russell’s Hall Hospital, United Kingdom, using available electronic patient records from 1st January 2022 to 30th June 2022. Patient confidentiality was maintained throughout the study, and the data collected was used for research purposes only. The study protocol was registered with the hospital audit committee via AMaT before the data collection was started. Informed consent was not required as this was a retrospective study, and the data were anonymized.

The inclusion criteria were as follows: participants aged 18 years or older, either gender, medical records available for review, and suspected CES (having any of the red-flagged symptoms, such as severe lower back pain, bilateral or absent sciatica, sensory disturbances in the saddle and/or genital area, and dysfunction of the bladder, bowel, and sexual organs). The following information was collected: age (years), gender, confirmation of CES on MRI, neurological deficit, micturition problems, loss of sensation of rectal fullness, urinary or faecal incontinence, bilateral sciatica, neurological symptoms in the lower limbs, past history and severity of symptoms, etiological factors for CES (previous medical history (PMH), history of cancer or trauma, previous education about CES), duration of symptoms, volume on bladder scan, and need for catheterization.

The data collected were entered into Microsoft Excel sheet 2016 and imported into R programming 4.1.2 for analysis. Descriptive statistics, such as means, standard deviations, and percentages, were used to summarize the data. The chi-square test was applied to compare symptoms and etiological factors among MRI-proven CES versus suspected CES. The significant variables among symptoms and etiological factors among MRI-proven CES versus suspected CES were run by logistic regression using CES (MRI-proven versus suspected) as the dependent variable to calculate odds ratios with 95% CI. The significance level was set at 0.05.

Results

The mean age of the participants was 58.05 ± 19.26 years. Table 1 shows data pertaining to 256 individuals and presents information on their gender and age group. In terms of gender, there were 151 females (58.98%) and 105 males (41.02%) in the sample. Regarding age group, the largest proportion of individuals fell within the 51–70 age range (31.25%, n = 80), followed by those aged 70 and above (33.59%, n = 86), 31–50 age range (27.73%, n = 71), and the smallest proportion within the 16–30 age range (7.42%, n = 19).

Table 1

Gender and age distribution of the study.

The study included 256 participants, of whom 50.78% had a severe or progressive bilateral neurological deficit, 17.58% had difficulty initiating micturition or impaired sensation of urinary flow, 3.12% had a loss of sensation of rectal fullness, 35.16% had urinary or faecal incontinence, 21.88% had bilateral sciatica, 25.00% had neurological symptoms in the lower limbs, 24.22% had anaesthesia or any leg weakness, and 21.88% had bilateral sciatica as the predominant symptom. The symptoms were acute in 21.88% of the participants, chronic in 47.27%, and absent in 51.95%. The rest of the overall results are given in Table 2. The frequency of severe or progressive bilateral neurological deficit was significantly higher in patients with MRI-proven CES (19.5%, n = 25) compared to those with suspected CES (44.98%) and the overall population (50.78%) (p < 0.001). The frequency of difficulty initiating micturition or impaired sensation of urinary flow, bilateral sciatica, predominant bilateral sciatica symptom, change in the severity of symptoms, the time point for change in the severity of symptoms, investigation in past for the same symptoms, did symptoms start with the back, and radicular leg pain did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, the frequency of loss of sensation of rectal fullness was significantly higher in MRI-proven CES (11.11%) compared to suspected CES (2.18%) (p = 0.05). Similarly, the frequency of urinary or faecal incontinence was higher in MRI-proven CES (44.44%) compared to suspected CES (34.06%), although the difference was not significant (p = 0.392). The frequency of neurological symptoms in the lower limbs and anaesthesia or any leg weakness did not differ significantly between the two groups. In addition, there was no significant difference in the time point for change in the severity of symptoms, investigation in past for same symptoms, did symptoms start with the back, and radicular leg pain between the two groups. The frequency of neurological symptoms was higher in MRI-proven CES (88.89%) compared to suspected CES (79.04%), although the difference was not significant (p = 0.338) (Table 2).

Table 2

Comparison of clinical characteristics between suspected and MRI-proven CES patients.

Among all 10.55% (27) had MRI-proven CES while 89.45% (229) had suspected CES (Figure 1). Among the 256 participants, 48.05% had a PMH of cancer diagnosis or previous CES, 21.48% had a history of trauma, 10.55% had a PMH of previous CES, and only 1.56% was previously given information about CES. In addition, 61.72% of patients received instructions about changing the consequences of delayed care. The majority of participants (42.19%) had symptoms lasting between 72 h and 2 weeks, while 36.33% had symptoms lasting more than 2 weeks, and 19.53% had symptoms lasting less than 72 h. Among those for whom it was available, 6.64% had a volume of 400 mL and above, 2.73% had a volume of 200–400 mL, 5.86% had a volume of 100–200 mL, and 19.53% had a volume of less than 100 mL. Finally, 26.17% of participants required catheterization. There was no significant difference in the history of cancer diagnosis or previous medical history (p = 0.549) or history of trauma in the past (p = 0.882) between patients with MRI-proven CES and those with suspected CES. However, patients with MRI-proven CES had a higher likelihood of a previous history of CES than those with suspected CES (p = 0.016). Patients with MRI-proven CES were significantly more likely to receive instructions about the changing consequences of delayed care (p = 0.004) and had a significantly higher post-micturition bladder volume (p < 0.001) with a higher likelihood of a bladder volume of 400 mL or above (p = 0.003). Non-progressive symptoms lasting 72 h–2 weeks had a higher likelihood of MRI-proven CES (p = 0.137). No significant difference existed in the need for catheterization (p = 0.507) between patients with MRI-proven CES and those with suspected CES (Table 3).

thumbnail Fig. 1

Frequency of cauda equina.
Table 3

Overall frequency and comparison of etiological factors for suspected and MRI-proven CES.

The multivariable analysis adjusts for the effects of other variables on the outcome (CES type). The OR for age in the multivariable analysis is 1.03, indicating that, after adjusting for other variables, the odds of MRI-proven CES increase by 3% for each one-year increase in age. Gender is not significantly associated with MRI-proven CES in either univariable or multivariable analysis. The OR for severe or progressive bilateral neurological deficit in the multivariable analysis is 14.97, indicating that, after adjusting for other variables; patients with this condition are almost 15 times more likely to have MRI-proven CES compared to those without this condition. The OR for loss of sensation of rectal fullness in the multivariable analysis is 10.62, indicating that, after adjusting for other variables, patients with this condition are over 10 times more likely to have MRI-proven as compared to suspected (Table 4).

Table 4

Multivariable analysis of the factors associated with MRI-proven CES.

Discussion

The study analyzed 256 individuals with varying symptoms of CES. Among them, 10.55% had MRI-proven CES, while 89.45% had suspected CES. Patients with MRI-proven CES had a higher likelihood of previous history of CES, receiving instructions about the changing consequences of delayed care, and had a significantly higher post-micturition bladder volume. Our study has revealed a significant relationship between a patient’s previous history of CES and the presence of confirmed CES on MRI. One possible explanation for this association could be that patients with a history of CES have experienced a prolonged duration of the condition, leading them to seek medical attention and undergo MRI as part of the diagnostic process. Healthcare providers should evaluate patients’ medical histories carefully and consider the possibility of underlying conditions that may be contributing to their current symptoms.

Females (58.98%) were more affected by CES than males (41.02%). This finding is consistent with a previous study conducted on the Brazilian population, which reported a gender distribution of 13 female patients (59%) and nine male patients (41%) [11]. The mean age of the participants was 58.05 ± 19.26 years. CES is commonly associated with degenerative spinal changes that are more likely to occur in the elderly population. A previous study conducted in Brazil reported a significantly lower mean age of 44.16 ± 12.83 years among the patients with CES, ranging from 22 to 64 years [11]. In contrary, male predominance for CES was reported in other studies too [12, 13]. Many factors play a role in delayed presentations among CES patients. The lack of knowledge among healthcare professionals about the classic signs and symptoms of CES can result in delayed diagnosis [14]. This problem is further compounded by the inadequate diagnostic resources in primary healthcare services and socioeconomic factors that limit access to healthcare [15]. Overcrowding and long wait times at public healthcare services exacerbate the situation, highlighting the need for increased investment in healthcare resources to provide timely and effective care to patients with CES [16].

The severe or progressive bilateral neurological deficit, urinary or faecal incontinence, bilateral sciatica, and neurological symptoms in the lower limbs were the most common clinical features observed among the study participants. Literature reports that a considerable number of patients with CES may experience long-term neurological sequelae. These sequelae can range from permanent motor and sensory deficits to neurogenic bladder, which was observed in 64% of patients in one study [17]. Additionally, 36% of patients in another study showed persistence of the initial deficit [18].

The multivariate analysis shows that age was found to be significantly associated with MRI-proven CES, with odds increasing by 3% for each one-year increase. Severe or progressive bilateral neurological deficit and loss of sensation of rectal fullness were strongly associated with MRI-proven CES, with patients with these conditions almost 15 and over 10 times more likely to have MRI-proven CES, respectively, compared to those without or with suspected CES. Literature shows that MRI should always be considered for diagnosing CES [19].

Conclusion

In conclusion, our study provides important insights into the clinical features of CES, which can aid healthcare providers in the timely diagnosis and management of the condition, potentially mitigating its long-term neurological sequelae. Future studies can build on our findings to develop more effective diagnostic and management strategies for CES.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific funding.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was not required.

Informed consent

This article does not contain any studies involving human subjects.

Authors contributions

Junaid Zeb: Writing of the draft.

Jehan Zaib: Editing, Proof reading, statisitics.

Arshad Khan: Conceptualization.

Mehreen Farid: Data collection.

Seemab Ambreen: Data collection

Syed Hussaini Shah: Data collection.

Acknowledgments

The authors have no declarations to make and all the participants have been acknowledged.

References

  1. Hoeritzauer I, Wood M, Copley PC, Demetriades AK, Woodfield J (2020) What is the incidence of cauda equina syndrome? A systematic review J Neurosurg Spine 32(6), 832–841. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Gardner A, Gardner E, Morley T (2011) Cauda equina syndrome: a review of the current clinical and medico-legal position. Eur Spine J 20, 690–697. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Fraser S, Roberts L, Murphy E (2009) Cauda equina syndrome: a literature review of its definition and clinical presentation. Archiv Phys Med Rehabilit 90(11), 1964–1968. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Reito A, Kyrölä K, Pekkanen L, Paloneva J (2018) Specific spinal pathologies in adult patients with an acute or subacute atraumatic low back pain in the emergency department. Int Orthop 42, 2843–2849. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bell DA, Collie D, Statham PF (2007) Cauda equina syndrome: what is the correlation between clinical assessment and MRI scanning? Br J Neurosurg 21(2), 201–203. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fairbank J, Hashimoto R, Dailey A, Patel AA, Dettori JR (2011) Does patient history and physical examination predict MRI proven cauda equina syndrome? Evide Evid Based Spine Care J 2(4), 27–33. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Balasubramanian K, Kalsi P, Greenough CG, et al. (2010) Reliability of clinical assessment in diagnosing cauda equina syndrome. Br J Neurosurg 24(4), 383–386. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bell DA, Collie D, Statham PF (2007) Cauda equina syndrome: what is the correlation between clinical assessment and MRI scanning? Br J Neurosurg 21(2), 201–203. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Domen PM, Hofman PA, van Santbrink H, et al. (2009) Predictive value of clinical characteristics in patients with suspected cauda equina syndrome. Eur J Neurol 16(3), 416–419. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Rooney A, Statham PF, Stone J (2009) Cauda equina syndrome with normal MR imaging. J Neurol 256(5), 721–725. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dias ALN, Araújo FFd, Cristante AF, Marcon RM, Barros Filho TEPd, Letaif OB (2018) Epidemiology of cauda equina syndrome. What changed until 2015. Revista Brasil Ortop 53, 107–112. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Shapiro S (2000) Medical realities of cauda equina syndrome secondary to lumbar disc herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25(3), 348–351. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. 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(2), 207–216. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. 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. Canad J Emer Med 3(4), 285–291. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Balasubramanian K, Kalsi P, Greenough CG, Kuskoor Seetharam MP (2010) Reliability of clinical assessment in diagnosing cauda equina syndrome. Br J Neurosurg 24(4), 383–386. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Fuso FAF, Dias ALN, Letaif OB, Cristante AF, Marcon RM, Barros Filho TEPd (2013) Epidemiological study of cauda equina syndrome. Acta Ortopedica Brasi 21, 159–162. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Harrop JS, Hunt GE Jr, Vaccaro AR (2004) Conus medullaris and cauda equina syndrome as a result of traumatic injuries: management principles. Neurosurg Focus 16(6), e4. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Rubenstein DJ, Alvarez O, Ghelman B, Marchisello P (1989) Cauda equina syndrome complicating ankylosing spondylitis: MR features. J Comput Assist Tomogr 13(3), 511–513. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. 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(4), 27–33. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cite this article as: Zeb J, Zaib J, Khan A, Farid M, Ambreen S & Shah SH (2023) Characteristics and clinical features of cauda equina syndrome: insights from a study on 256 patients. SICOT-J 9, 22

All Tables

Table 1

Gender and age distribution of the study.

In the text
Table 2

Comparison of clinical characteristics between suspected and MRI-proven CES patients.

In the text
Table 3

Overall frequency and comparison of etiological factors for suspected and MRI-proven CES.

In the text
Table 4

Multivariable analysis of the factors associated with MRI-proven CES.

In the text

All Figures

thumbnail Fig. 1

Frequency of cauda equina.
In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.