Adult Split Cord Malformations










CHAPTER
9
Adult Split Cord Malformations

Mohit Agrawal, Manoj Phalak, and Ashok K. Mahapatra


Introduction


Split cord malformation (SCM) is predominantly a diagnosis of childhood which presents in a varied manner. In recent years, this entity has been diagnosed in adults as well. This has been partly due to improved imaging and recognition of this condition. In a literature review published in 1990, Russel et al identified 45 adult cases with diastematomyelia.2 Since then, the number of case reports with adult SCM have grown considerably, with most case series of adult tethered cord syndrome (TCS) reporting patients with this form of spinal dysraphism. The benefit of early surgical detethering in children has been well-established in literature. There is a lack of clarity as far as the clinical and management aspects of adult SCM is concerned, which is still controversial with regard to asymptomatic patients, who are incidentally diagnosed with this condition.


Pathophysiology


The reason why children with TCS develop neurological deterioration is because of the stretching and consequent injury to the nerve fibers as the child grows. Adults have already completed their growth curve and somehow not developed any symptoms despite the presence of tethering element caudally. However, the risk of neurological deficits occurring due to mechanical stretching of the spine during trauma or any specific postures is still present. It has also been seen that patients might ignore or downplay long-standing minor neurological deficits and not seek any medical help for the same.2 Patients with progressive scoliosis or those with degenerative spine2 may become symptomatic as the configuration of the spine changes. Another set of patients in which adult SCM has been reported are those in whom scoliosis correction surgery was performed when they belonged to the adolescent age group, that is, before the widespread use of MRI as a screening tool to look for TCS prior to surgery.2 These patients present in adulthood with progressive neurological deterioration.


Demography


Adult SCM has predominantly been reported in females (Table 9.1). Russel et al2 in a review on all the case reports on adult SCM found 45 patients with a F:M ratio of 3.4:1. The cause of this gender predilection is unknown. This condition presents in a wide age group, ranging from 18 to 88 years,2 with no definite peak in any decade.






















































































































































































































































Table 9.1 Management and outcomes reported in world literature on adult SCM


Author


No. of patients


Age and gender


Cord ending/type of split and level


Surgery


Complication


Follow-up/postop status


Shukla et al2


7


Not mentioned separately


2– type I, 5– type II (level not mentioned)


Detethering with removal of spur


NA


Improved or stable


Viswanathan et al2


2


67/F


L4/L2–3 type II spur, T12 syrinx


Laminectomy + removal of spur with detethering


None


5.5 years/improved


53/F


L3/type I spur at L1–2


Laminectomy + removal of spur with detethering


None


1 year/improved


Davanzo et al2


1


43/M


L5/Duplicated filum terminale


Laminectomy and detethering


Pseudomeningocele–re-exploration and repair


6 weeks/improved


Kim et al2


1


34/F


L5/C7–D11 type II spur


Laminectomy + removal of spur with detethering


None


7 years/improvement (pain and motor)


Borkar et al2


7


Not mentioned separately


M/c thoracic f/b lumbar (level not mentioned)


Laminectomy + removal of spur with detethering


7% patients had long-term deficits


Improvement/stable


Klekamp2


24


46 ± 13 years (range 23–74 years)


22– lumbar, 2– cervical


Detethering and spur removal


NA


Improvement/stable


Rahimizadeh et al2


1


72/F


C5–D3 type I spur


None


NA


18 months/stable


Conti et al2


2


87/M


Intramedullary dermoid cyst with type II spur at L1


Laminectomy and excision of tumor


None


1 month/improvement (pain and sensorimotor)


38/F


L1–2 intramedullary teratoma with type II spur


Laminectomy and excision of tumor


None


2 months/improvement (pain)


Méndez et al2


1


88/F


L2–5 type I spur with L4 vertebral body collapse


L4 vertebroplasty


NA


Improvement (pain)


Armstrong et al2


1


37/F


D1 type II spur


NA


NA


NA


Porensky et al2


1


54/F


L4, D4–D9, D11–L3 type II spur, type I spur at D8, D7–8 extramedullary epidermoid cyst


Laminectomy + removal of spur with tumor excision


Pulmonary embolism


8 months/improvement (pain, sensorimotor, sphincter deficits with stable scoliosis)


Guilloton et al2


2


40/F


Type II spur at L2


None


NA


NA


54/F


Type II spur D12–L1


None


NA


NA


Goina et al2


1


68/F


L4, type II spur at L2 with cranial syrinx


NA


NA


NA


Lewandrowski et al2


1


44/F


L1–2 type I spur


Laminectomy with removal of fusion mass and spur


Pseudomeningocele


1 year/improvement


Pallatroni et al2


1


78/F


L5, L3–4 type II spur


None


None


NA


Soni et al2


1


30/F


D7–8 type I SCM with extramedullary neuroenteric cyst


Laminectomy + excision of bony spur and cyst


None


3 month/improvement


Quinones-Hinojosa et al2


1


73/F


L3/type II spur D12–L3


Laminectomy + removal of spur with detethering


None


6 weeks/improvement (pain and motor)


Sheehan et al2


1


38/F


D1–D3 type II spur, D2–4 intramedullary epidermoid, cranial syrinx


Laminectomy + removal of spur with tumor excision


None


Improvement (pain, sensorimotor, sphincter deficits)


Hüttmann et al2


12


Not mentioned separately


Not mentioned separately


NA


NA


8 years (mean)/improvement/stable


Wenger et al2


1


38/F


L3–4 level type II spur


None


NA


Improved on conservative management


Kaminker et al2


1


38/M


L4/ type I spur L2–3


Laminectomy + extradural removal of spur


None


2 years/improvement (pain)


Iskandar et al2


13


Mean–34 years


Not mentioned separately


NA


NA


Improvement/stable


Prasad et al2


2


28/M


L4–5 type I spur


Laminectomy + removal of spur with detethering


None


Improvement (pain and sensorimotor)


22/F


D11–12 type I spur


Laminectomy and spur excision


None


Improvement (pain and urinary symptoms)


Pang2


8


Not mentioned separately


6–type I, 2–type II spur


NA


NA


NA


Russell et al2– review article of all previous reported cases


45


19–76 (mean–37.8 years), 3.4:1 F:M


M/C lumbar


24 patients underwent surgery


NA


23 showed improvement


Abbreviation: SCM, split cord malformation.


Clinical Features


Backache is the most common presenting complaint in adult SCM (Fig. 9.1). It may present with or without features of radiculopathy in the distribution of the involved nerve roots.2,2,2,2,2,22,2 For most adults, this may be the only complaint, with the pathology being found upon investigation into the cause of the pain. Adults present with some mild form of sensorimotor deficits or bladder symptoms. Unlike the pediatric population where these symptoms are investigated earlier, adults tend to ignore the symptoms attributing it to some other cause. The lack of knowledge about this condition, amongst patients and doctors, is the reason for some of the cases of late diagnosis of this condition in the 7th and 8th decades, despite the patient having obvious cutaneous markers or musculoskeletal deformity. Hypertrichosis22,2,2,2 is the most common associated cutaneous marker reported in adult SCM, followed by dermal sinus.2,2 Orthopedic abnormalities like scoliosis or club foot are less commonly found in adult SCM, with most patients with these conditions being diagnosed and managed appropriately in childhood itself. Development of new deficits, or the progression of minor established ones, finally lead these patients to seek medical attention in late adulthood.2




Fig. 9.1 A 23-year-old female presented with a history of progressive low backache for the past 4 years. She had no urinary complaints and had no neurological deficits. (a) Local examination showed hypertrichosis over the lower back. (b, c) CT scan of the lumbosacral spine showed a L2-L3 bony spur. (d, e) MRI confirmed the diagnosis of Type I SCM with low lying cord at L5 (arrow). She underwent laminectomy, spur removal and detethering of the low-lying cord. (f) Intraoperative image showing the split cords with the bony spur being removed (asterisk). She had an uneventful postoperative period and is doing well at follow up.

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Sep 11, 2022 | Posted by in NEUROSURGERY | Comments Off on Adult Split Cord Malformations

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access