Detection and Management of Tethered Cord in Anorectal Malformation: A Survey of Pediatric Neurosurgeons in the United States

Novel Insights from Clinical Practice

Smith C.A. · Nicassio L.N. · Rice-Townsend S.E. · Avansino J.R. · Hauptman J.S.

Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.

Buy FullText & PDF Unlimited re-access via MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.

Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.

Learn more

Access via DeepDyve Unlimited fulltext viewing Of this article Organize, annotate And mark up articles Printing And downloading restrictions apply

Select

Subscribe Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use read more

Subcription rates

Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details Abstract

Introduction: The reported prevalence of tethered spinal cord in patients with anorectal malformations (ARM) ranges from 9% to 64%. Practice patterns surrounding the diagnosis and management of tethered cord are suspected to vary, with consideration to type of spine imaging, adjunct imaging modalities, what patients are offered surgical intervention, and how patients are followed after detethering. We sought to determine what consensus, if any, exists among pediatric neurosurgeons in the United States in terms of diagnosis and management of tethered cord and specifically, patients with tethered cord and ARM. Methods: A survey was sent to members of the American Society of Pediatric Neurosurgeons (ASPN). Members of the ASPN received an email with a link to an anonymous REDCap survey that asked about their experience with detethering procedures, indications for surgery, diagnostic tools used, and follow-up protocols. Results: The survey was completed by 93 of the 192 ASPN members (48%). When respondents were asked about the total number of all simple filum detetherings they performed annually, 61% (N=57) indicated they perform less than 10 for all tethered cord patients (TC). Ninety-three percent (N=87) of neurosurgeons performed these procedures in patients with simple filum tethered cord and ARM patients (TC + ARM) specifically. When asked about prophylactic detethering in those with a confirmed diagnosis of low lying conus and with a filum fatty terminale, 59.1% (N=55) indicated they would offer this to TC + ARM patients regardless of their age. Regarding pre-operative workup for simple filum detethering, all respondents indicated they would order an MRI in both TC and TC + ARM patients, with a minority also requiring additional testing such as urodynamics, neuro-developmental assessments, and anorectal manometry for both groups. When following patients post-operatively, almost all respondents indicated they would require clinical neurosurgical follow-up with a clinic visit (100% in all simple filum TC patients, 98.9% in fatty filum/low lying conus TC + ARM patients), but there was wide variation in the use of other tools such as urological testing, neurodevelopmental assessment, and anorectal manometry. Discussion/Conclusions: A wide variety of diagnostic criteria and indication for procedural intervention exists for management of tethered cord patients with and without ARM. Further studies are needed to determine outcomes. Prospective protocols need to be developed and evaluated to standardize care for this patient population and determine best practices.

S. Karger AG, Basel

Article / Publication Details Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif