Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation · 2026
A Scoping Review of Traumatic Cauda Equina Injury Outcomes.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Beaumont Xenia, Wu Matthew, Liew Susan, Reeder Sandra, Romero Lorena, Gabbe Belinda
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To identify which outcomes have been described following traumatic cauda equina injury (CEI).
METHODS: A search strategy was developed and the following electronic databases were searched for this scoping review: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Emcare, PsycInfo, and Google Scholar. Eligible articles were first title and abstract screened, and then full text was screened by 2 independent reviewers. The data were extracted and presented in a narrative format.
RESULTS: Of the 3853 articles returned in the initial search, 44 studies were included in the final review. Whilst 44 studies examined outcomes following traumatic CEI, only 19 (43%) examined CEI as a stand-alone injury. Most studies (n = 25, 57%) did not provide a definition for a diagnosis of CEI. Of the 19 studies that did provide a definition, 8 (18%) used a vertebral level of injury to diagnose CEI. No studies used the same vertebral level. Across the 44 included studies, there was a wide variability in outcome reporting. The most commonly reported outcomes were motor outcomes (n = 25, 57%) and bladder outcomes (n = 25, 57%).
CONCLUSION: There is a notable gap in research examining traumatic CEI independent of other etiologies of CEI or other spinal cord injuries. The findings of this review also highlight the need for greater consistency in the definition of CEI. The development of a traumatic CEI-specific outcomes tool would aid in reporting consistency between studies.
METHODS: A search strategy was developed and the following electronic databases were searched for this scoping review: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Emcare, PsycInfo, and Google Scholar. Eligible articles were first title and abstract screened, and then full text was screened by 2 independent reviewers. The data were extracted and presented in a narrative format.
RESULTS: Of the 3853 articles returned in the initial search, 44 studies were included in the final review. Whilst 44 studies examined outcomes following traumatic CEI, only 19 (43%) examined CEI as a stand-alone injury. Most studies (n = 25, 57%) did not provide a definition for a diagnosis of CEI. Of the 19 studies that did provide a definition, 8 (18%) used a vertebral level of injury to diagnose CEI. No studies used the same vertebral level. Across the 44 included studies, there was a wide variability in outcome reporting. The most commonly reported outcomes were motor outcomes (n = 25, 57%) and bladder outcomes (n = 25, 57%).
CONCLUSION: There is a notable gap in research examining traumatic CEI independent of other etiologies of CEI or other spinal cord injuries. The findings of this review also highlight the need for greater consistency in the definition of CEI. The development of a traumatic CEI-specific outcomes tool would aid in reporting consistency between studies.