A Case With Cauda Equina Syndrome Due to Bacterial Meningitis of Anterior Sacral Meningocele
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A case of a patient with anterior sacral meningocele that was misdiagnosed as perianal abscess is presented. After the transrectal aspiration, the patient developed meningitis and cauda equina syndrome. OBJECTIVE: To report a rare case of anterior sacral meningocele in which primary presentation was mimicking perianal abscess. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND DATA: Anterior sacral meningocele is a rare example of spinal dysraphism. It is created by a herniation of a dural sac through a defect in the sacral wall. It is usually asymptomatic until later decades. Most of the presenting symptoms are related to the pelvic organs. In the management of anterior sacral meningocele, surgical treatment is necessary. METHODS: The reported case is that of a 35-year-old female with cauda equina syndrome due to bacterial meningitis of the anterior sacral meningocele. At the beginning, she presented signs and symptoms resembling perianal abscess. She was misdiagnosed as anorectal abscess according to the computed tomography findings. The patient then underwent transrectal aspiration. Following the aspiration, meningitis and cauda equina syndrome were developed. Meningitis was treated with the appropriate antibiotics, and the patient underwent rehabilitation for paraplegia and bladder and bowel incontinence. RESULTS: Following the rehabilitation program, the patient has recovered completely within 8 months. CONCLUSION: This case represents a rare example of anterior sacral meningocele in which the patient was misdiagnosed as perianal abscess. Meningitis either iatrogenic or spontaneous may occur during the course of anterior sacral meningocele. Once it has occurred, it may result in severe morbidity and mortality. However, our case had been treated effectively, and she had regained her health with rehabilitation program.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".