MAT# 17375562
**Please see attached supporting documentation/OP notes/etc**
The patient underwent an L1–L3 lumbar fusion on 2/19/25 (anterior/lateral interbody work with posterior instrumentation described in the operative documentation).
The records describe that new neurologic deficits were noted immediately postoperatively, beginning in the PACU and persisting/worsening overnight, including bilateral lower-extremity weakness/sensory loss and symptoms concerning for conus/cauda equina involvement (including saddle/anogenital sensory changes).
A CT lumbar spine without contrast was obtained shortly after midnight on 2/20/25 (00:06).
The CT was later updated by radiology with an addendum dated 2/21/25 at 16:36, stating that what had been described as a “spinal stimulator” could represent a drain, and describing a high-density lesion in the spinal canal at L1–2, “possibly bony fragment,” measuring ~7.3 mm, along with an additional anterior high-density area described as possibly cement product.
On 2/20/25, clinicians suspected a postoperative compressive cause for the neurologic deficit and attempted escalation to urgent advanced imaging (MRI), but MRI was reportedly delayed/refused due to concern the patient had an implanted stimulator (later suggested to be a drain), and the plan shifted toward CT myelogram and urgent return to the OR.
On 2/20/25, the patient underwent a revision decompression procedure (described as posterior decompression/laminotomy/laminectomy-type work at L1–2 with evacuation of compressive pathology).
Documentation describes that the revision addressed disc herniation and hematoma in the setting of postoperative bilateral paresthesia and loss of movement, but the patient had persistent severe neurologic deficits afterward and ultimately required inpatient rehabilitation.
Based on these records, please assume neurologic deficits began in the PACU and progressed overnight (bilateral leg weakness and saddle/anogenital sensory changes concerning for conus/cauda equina syndrome). A CT lumbar spine was obtained at 00:06 on 2/20/25 and later received an addendum identifying a canal high-density lesion at L1–2 (possibly bony fragment), while revision decompression occurred around 13:11 on 2/20/25 for severe conus/cauda equina compression attributed to disc herniation and/or hematoma.
(1) Standard of care timing: In a post-lumbar-fusion patient with new bilateral weakness and saddle anesthesia (suspected CES/conus injury), what is the expected standard-of-care timeline for: bedside neuro exam, imaging (MRI vs CT myelogram when MRI delayed/blocked), and surgical decompression? Is within 24 hours adequate in this clinical picture, or should decompression be performed on a specific hours basis?
(2) Causation: Within a reasonable degree of medical probability, would earlier recognition and earlier return to the OR (e.g., shortly after PACU onset, or at least after the 00:06 CT) have more likely than not improved neurologic outcome (even partial recovery of motor/sensory function or bladder/bowel function) compared with decompression at ~13:11? Please explain your reasoning using spinal cord/conus/cauda ischemia/compression physiology and the likely etiology of compression (hematoma vs disc vs bony fragment/bone graft).
(3) Imaging reliance: If the CT report did not flag a canal-compromising lesion initially, but clinical findings strongly suggested CES/conus compromise, does the surgeon still have a duty to independently review images and/or proceed based on clinical deterioration?
(4) Delay drivers: If MRI was delayed/refused due to device confusion (stimulator vs drain) and CT myelogram was pursued instead, is that a reasonable pathway, and what is the maximum acceptable delay before decompression when severe deficits are present/progressing?
(5) Operative findings documentation: Is failure to document what was found in the canal (and whether a bony fragment/bone graft was present) a deviation from operative documentation standards, and how does that affect evaluation of mechanism and timing?
Your time and opinions are appreciated, questions welcome.
Files:
No questions yet!
Do you believe there might have been medical error?
MRI with contrast is the standard for evaluating cord compression/conus compression in the setting of progressive neurologic deficit following surgery. Surgeon should have known if the patient had spinal cord stimulator. There should not have been any confusion between spinal cord stimulator and a drain. Earlier diagnosis and intervention could have prevented neurologic deficit.
Do you believe there might have been causation (i.e. the medical error resulted in an injury)?
Without reviewing preop MRI report, it is difficult to asses whether the disc fragmen compromising the canal is new after the initial surgery. Op report suggested release of posterior longitudinal ligament, which can result in retropulsion of disc fragment into the canal.
What makes you a good expert for this case?
I am a board certified orthopedic spine surgeon and has been in practice for over 15 years. I routinely perform spinal decompression and fusion.
How often do you encounter cases similar to this one in your practice?
I routinely perform spinal decompression and fusion. I perform anterior, lateral and posterior approach for lumbar fusion.
Do you believe there might have been medical error?
If the compressive source was postoperative hematoma and/or a fixed canal-compromising fragment (bone/bone graft/cement), earlier decompression (closer to onset or shortly after the 00:06 CT) more likely than not would have improved the chance of at least partial neurologic recovery (motor/sensory and possibly bladder/bowel), because prolonged conus/cauda compression causes time-dependent ischemia, edema, and irreversible neural injury. • If the lesion were disc-only without a significant hematoma/fixed fragment component, the strength of causation for a difference between “early morning” and “early afternoon” becomes more contestable, but in a rapidly progressive, postoperative deficit scenario, earlier relief still has strong physiologic plausibility.
Do you believe there might have been causation (i.e. the medical error resulted in an injury)?
failure to clearly document what was found and removed in the canal (hematoma volume/location, disc fragment, bone/bone graft/cement, hardware-related compression) is a documentation deficiency relative to operative reporting standards. It impairs later assessment of mechanism (what caused the compression), timing relevance (how time-sensitive the lesion likely was), and the strength of causation opinions.
What makes you a good expert for this case?
I’m a board certified orthopedic Spine Surgeon. I do these procedures on a weekly basis. Furthermore there should not have been a confusion between a spinal cord stimulator and a drain. These are very different findings on radiological exam. I feel the Radiologist should be able to differentiate this within a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Certainly the attending could’ve cleared the patient’s history. Had been following the postoperative care.
How often do you encounter cases similar to this one in your practice?
These are not common findings. Surgeons are usually very attentive to the postoperative neurological changes of patience. These are very avoidable. Or at least treated nearly immediately in the postoperative period. Period. A delay and diagnosis for clarification. Legion is highly unlikely if the patient is monitored proper.
Want to open a case or submit response?
Comments are accepted only from Orthopaedic Surgery - includes all subspecialties experts.