Cauda Equina Syndrome after Sequestered Disc Herniation Migrating to the Dorsal Epidural Space: Case Report and Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Posteriorly migrated epidural disc fragments (PMEDF) presenting with cauda equina syndrome are relatively common. These cases are sometimes inaccurately identified on MRI as; epidural tumors, abscesses, hematomas and or facet cysts. Proper description and identification are key to be able to provide effective and safe management. Currently we are presenting the case of a patient with cauda equina syndrome secondary to a posterior mass compression intraoperatively identified as a PMEDF. Case Description: 45-years-old male presenting with insidious low back pain that progressed to urinary retention and bilateral foot drop. An MRI of the lumbar spine showed a posteriorly located epidural lesion. That appeared to be dependent on a left facet cyst. The patient was treated with a decompressive laminectomy and multiple disc fragments were identified under the ligamentum flavum and over the posterior epidural space. Conclusion: Posterior epidural migration of a lumbar disc fragments (PEMLDF) are not a common presentation of intervertebral disc herniations and their differential diagnosis and treatment might require a different surgical approach; fusion vs decompression. PEMLDFs should be suspected on those patients presenting with sudden cauda equina syndrome and posteriorly located epidural lesions on MRI.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".