Abstract
Introduction: The reported prevalence of tethered spinal cord in patients with anorectal malformations (ARMs) ranges from 9% to 64%. Practice patterns surrounding the diagnosis and management of tethered cord (TC) are suspected to vary, with consideration to the 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 USA in terms of diagnosis and management of TC and, specifically, patients with TC 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 TC patients. Ninety-three percent (N = 87) of neurosurgeons performed these procedures in patients with simple filum TC 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 preoperative 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, neurodevelopmental assessments, and anorectal manometry for both groups. When following patients postoperatively, 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 TC 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.
