Table of Contents
CHAPTER 9 | Adult Split Cord Malformations |
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.2,2,2,2,2,2–2,2 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. Hypertrichosis2–2,2,2,2 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