Does the Surgical Timing and Decompression Alone or Fusion Surgery in Lumbar Stenosis Influence Outcome in Cauda Equina Syndrome?
- Author:
Bharat Rajendraprasad DAVE
1
;
Puspak SAMAL
;
Romin SANGVI
;
Devanand DEGULMADI
;
Denish PATEL
;
Ajay KRISHNAN
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Polyradiculopathy; Cauda equina; Syndrome; Intervertebral disc displacement; Spinal fusion; Diskectomy; Lumbar stenosis
- MeSH: Cauda Equina; Constriction, Pathologic; Decompression; Diagnosis; Diskectomy; Emergencies; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Incidence; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Low Back Pain; Lower Extremity; Patient Satisfaction; Polyradiculopathy; Retrospective Studies; Spinal Fusion; Tears
- From:Asian Spine Journal 2019;13(2):198-209
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective comparative analysis of 64 patients with cauda equina syndrome (CES), who underwent either decompression alone (NF) or fusion (F) surgery. PURPOSE: We compared the outcomes and timing effects. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: CES can cause loss of autonomic control of vesicular function and lower limb neurological deficits. Prompt diagnosis and emergency surgery markedly improve outcome. Although decompression only is a mainstream technique, there is guarded recovery of vesicular dysfunction. Decompression ventrally in a narrow window requires manipulation of neural tissue in an already jeopardised critical canal and may accentuate irreversible damages. In F surgery, the adequate exposure leads to a lower neural manipulation. METHODS: Until January 2008, we treated CES with decompression (laminectomy and/or discectomy). However, from that month forward, all our single-level CES patients have received a fusion operation. In this study, characteristic categorical variables and outcomes were analysed. RESULTS: In a retrospective analysis of 64 patients, NF (n=37) and F (n=27) who received treatment, we found that both groups improved significantly on follow-up in all objective parameters. Although, the comparison of clinical and functional outcome data between the two groups was statistically insignificant, the average value of objective outcome such as vesicular function, low back pain (LBP), and complications was better for patients in F group compared with NF group. However, the patient satisfaction for the F group was also lower, in view of their residual symptoms and disabilities. Contrary to common perceptions, we found that the timing of surgery does not influence the recovery rate for either approach. CONCLUSIONS: Although both the techniques appear to be equally effective, the fusion approach overall showed a definite edge over non-fusion, with respect to reduced incidence of iatrogenic dural tears, LBP, and overall outcome, even despite the lower patient satisfaction.
