Spinal cord · 2017
Definitions of traumatic conus medullaris and cauda equina syndrome: a systematic literature review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Brouwers E, van de Meent H, Curt A, Starremans B, Hosman A, Bartels R
Аннотация
STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review.
OBJECTIVES: Conus medullaris syndrome (CMS) and cauda equina syndrome (CES) are well-known neurological entities. It is assumed that these syndromes are different regarding neurological and functional prognosis. However, literature concerning spinal trauma is ambiguous about the exact definition of the syndromes.
METHODS: A MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane literature search was performed. We included original articles in which clinical descriptions of CMS and/or CES were mentioned in patients following trauma to the thoracolumbar spine.
RESULTS: Out of the 1046 articles, we identified 14 original articles concerning patients with a traumatic CMS and/or CES. Based on this review and anatomical data from cadaveric and radiological studies, CMS and CES could be more precisely defined.
CONCLUSION: CMS may result from injury of vertebrae Th12-L2, and it involves damage to neural structures from spinal cord segment Th12 to nerve root S5. CES may result from an injury of vertebrae L3-L5, and it involves damage to nerve roots L3-S5. This differentiation between CMS and CES is necessary to examine the hypothesis that CES patients tend to have a better functional outcome.
OBJECTIVES: Conus medullaris syndrome (CMS) and cauda equina syndrome (CES) are well-known neurological entities. It is assumed that these syndromes are different regarding neurological and functional prognosis. However, literature concerning spinal trauma is ambiguous about the exact definition of the syndromes.
METHODS: A MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane literature search was performed. We included original articles in which clinical descriptions of CMS and/or CES were mentioned in patients following trauma to the thoracolumbar spine.
RESULTS: Out of the 1046 articles, we identified 14 original articles concerning patients with a traumatic CMS and/or CES. Based on this review and anatomical data from cadaveric and radiological studies, CMS and CES could be more precisely defined.
CONCLUSION: CMS may result from injury of vertebrae Th12-L2, and it involves damage to neural structures from spinal cord segment Th12 to nerve root S5. CES may result from an injury of vertebrae L3-L5, and it involves damage to nerve roots L3-S5. This differentiation between CMS and CES is necessary to examine the hypothesis that CES patients tend to have a better functional outcome.