Urological Concerns of Occult Spinal Dysraphism/Tethered Cord

  • David B. JosephEmail author


Urologic manifestation, evaluation, and management of a child with a tethered cord secondary to occult spinal dysraphism are not clearly understood. There are no strong evidence-based studies that help guide the pediatric urologist. This chapter reviews the basic understanding of occult spinal dysraphism and its potential impact on urinary bladder dynamics and symptomatic voiding dysfunction. The foundation of management often centers on urodynamic testing which provides objective assessment of urinary bladder function. The urodynamic study helps define current status directing active management and provides a baseline that can be utilized to place in perspective changes that might be occurring because of the progression of cord tethering. The potential need for operative intervention of the tethered cord due to occult spinal dysraphism based on urologic symptoms or urodynamic parameters will be discussed along with the expected outcome.


Voiding dysfunction Spinal dysraphism Tethered cord Urology Urinary bladder Pediatric neurology Urodynamics Urologic symptoms 


  1. 1.
    Tuite GF, et al. Evaluation and management of tethered cord syndrome in occult spinal dysraphism: recommendations from the international children’s continence society. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;1–14.
  2. 2.
    Wen JG, et al. Bladder function development and its urodynamic evaluation in neonates and infants less than 2 years old. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34:554–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mevorach RA, Kogan BA. Fetal lower urinary tract physiology: in vivo studies. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1995;385:85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guerra L, et al. Best practice in the assessment of bladder function in infants. Ther Adv Urol. 2014;6(4):148–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sillén U. Bladder function in infants. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 2004;215:69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sillén U. Infant urodynamics. J Urol. 2009;181:1536–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jansson UB, et al. Voiding pattern in healthy children 0 to 3 years old: a longitudinal study. J Urol. 2000;164:2050–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cochrane DD. Occult spinal dysraphism. In: Albright AL, Pollack I, Adelson P, editors. Principle’s and practice of pediatric neurosurgery. New York: Thieme; 2015. p. 308–24.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Powell KR, et al. A prospective search for congenital dermal abnormalities of the craniospinal axis. J Pediatr. 1975;87:744–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iacobas I, et al. LUMBAR: association between cutaneous infantile hemangiomas of the lower body and regional congenital anomalies. J Pediatr. 2010;157:795–801. e791–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dias M, Partington M. Congenital brain and spinal cord malformations and their associated cutaneous markers. Pediatrics. 2015;136:e1105–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hughes JA, et al. Evaluation of spinal ultrasound in spinal dysraphism. Clin Radiol. 2003;58:227–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kucera JN, et al. The simple sacral dimple: diagnostic yield of ultrasound in neonates. Pediatr Radiol. 2015;45:211–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rozzelle CJ, et al. Sonographic determination of normal Conus Medullaris level and ascent in early infancy. Childs Nerv Syst. 2014;30:655–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA review results in new warnings about using general anesthetics and sedation drugs in young children and pregnant women FDA Drug Safety Communication issued on 4-27-2017.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heller BJ, et al. Can we reduce anesthesia exposure? Neonatal brain MRI: swaddling vs. sedation, a national survey. J Clin Anesth. 2017;38:119–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Antonov NK, et al. Feed and wrap MRI technique in infants. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2017;56(12):1095–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Joseph DB. Current management of Spina Bifida. Curr Urol Rep. 2008;9:151–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Joseph DB. The effect of medium-fill and slow-fill saline cystometry on detrusor pressure in infants and children with myelodysplasia. J Urol. 1992;147:444–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Valentini LG, et al. Occult spinal dysraphism: lessons learned by retrospective analysis of 149 surgical cases about natural history, surgical indications urodynamic testing, and intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. Childs Nerv Syst. 2013;29:1657–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Joseph DB. Untethering of the spinal cord in children with myelomeningocele: effect on bladder function. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2007;49:472–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yener S, et al. The effect of untethering on urologic symptoms and urodynamic parameters in children with primary tethered cord syndrome. Urology. 2015;85:221–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Routh JC, et al. Design and methodological considerations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urologic and renal protocol for the newborn and young child with spina bifida. J Urol. 2016;196:1728–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim SM, et al. Spinal dysraphism with anorectal malformation: lumbosacral magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of 120 patients. J Pediatr Surg. 2010;45:769–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sasani Metal. Correlation of cutaneous lesions with clinical radiological and urodynamic findings in the prognosis of underlying spinal dysraphism disorders. Pediatr Neurosurg. 2008;44(5):360–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Atala A, et al. Bladder functional changes resulting from lipomyelomeningocele repair. J Urol. 1992;148:592–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Proctor MR, et al. The effect of surgery for split spinal cord malformation on neurologic and urologic function. Pediatr Neurosurg. 2000;32:13–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Selcuki M, et al. Inappropriate surgical interventions for midline fusion defects cause secondary tethered cord symptoms: implications for natural history report of four cases. Childs Nerv Syst. 2012;28:1755–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zerah M, et al. Spinal lipomas. In: Sainte-Rose C, Di Rocco C, editors. The spina bifida. Management and outcome. Milan: Springer; 2008. p. 445–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wykes V, et al. Asymptomatic lumbosacral lipomas-a natural history study. Childs Nerv Syst. 2012;28:1731–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    White JT, et al. Systematic review of urologic outcomes from tethered cord release in occult spinal dysraphism in children. Curr Urol Rep. 2015;16:78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Golonka NR, et al. Routine MRI evaluation of low imperforate anus reveals unexpected high incidence of tethered spinal cord. J Pediatr Surg. 2002;37:966–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Selden NR. Minimal tethered cord syndrome: what’s necessary to justify a new surgical indication? Neurosurg Focus. 2007;23:E1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wehby MC, et al. Occult tight filum terminale syndrome: results of surgical untethering. Pediatr Neurosurg. 2004;40:51–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bao N, et al. Tight filum terminale syndrome in children: analysis based on positioning of the conus and absence or presence of lumbosacral lipoma. Childs Nerv Syst. 2007;23:1129–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nogueira M, et al. Tethered cord in children: a clinical classification with urodynamic correlation. J Urol. 2004;172:1677–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Khoury AE, et al. Occult spinal dysraphism: clinical and urodynamic outcome after division of the filum terminale. J Urol. 1990;144:426–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Steinbok P, et al. Filum section for urinary incontinence in children with occult tethered cord syndrome: a randomized, controlled pilot study. J Urol. 2016;195:1183–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sarris CE, et al. Lipomyelomeningocele: pathology, treatment, and outcomes. Neurosurg Focus. 2012;33:E3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rajpal S. Lipomyelomeningocele. In: Winn HR, editor. Youman’s neurological surgery, vol. 2. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2011. p. 2211–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cochrane DD. Cord untethering for lipomyelomeningocele: expectation after surgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2007;23:E9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Thuy M, et al. Spinal cord detethering procedures in children: a 5 year retrospective cohort study of the early post-operative course. J Clin Neurosci. 2015;22:838–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cheung, et al. Paraplegia after tethered cord surgery: an uncommon combined anomaly of spinal arteriovenous fistula and sacral lipoma—case report. Neurosurgery. 2005;57:E598.. discussion E598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Goodrich DJ, et al. Symptomatic retethering of the spinal cord in postoperative lipomyelomeningocele patients: a meta-analysis. Childs Nerv Syst. 2015;32:121–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hajnovic L, Trnka J. Tethered spinal cord syndrome-the importance of time for outcomes. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2007;17:190–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Huang SL, et al. Surgical treatment for lipomyelomeningocele in children. World J Pediatr. 2010;6:361–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Koyanagi I, et al. Surgical treatment supposed natural history of the tethered cord with occult spinal dysraphism. Childs Nerv Syst. 1997;13:268–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Talamonti G, et al. Asymptomatic lipomas of the medullary conus: surgical treatment versus conservative management. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2014;14:245–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Maher CO, et al. Urological outcome following multiple repeat spinal cord untethering operations. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2009;4:275–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jetan H, et al. Spontaneous improvement in urological dysfunction in children with congenital spinal lipomas of the conus medullaris. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2014;13:536–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Keating MA, et al. Neurourological implications of the changing approach in management of occult spinal lesions. J Urol. 1988;140:1299–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Satar N, et al. The effects of delayed diagnosis and treatment in patients with an occult spinal dysraphism. J Urol. 1995;154:754–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bauer SB. Neurogenic bladder: etiology and assessment. Pediatr Nephrol (Berlin, Germany). 2008;23:541–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Geyik M, et al. Urodynamic outcomes of detethering in children: experience with 46 pediatric patients. Childs Nerv Syst. 2016;32:1079–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Frainey BT, et al. Predictors of urinary continence following tethered cord release in children with occult spinal dysraphism. J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10:627–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kang HS, et al. Prognostic factors affecting urologic outcome after untethering surgery for lumbosacrallipoma. Childs Nerv Syst. 2006;22:1111–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Cho PS, et al. Sacral agenesis and neurogenic bladder: long-term outcomes of bladder and kidney function. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12:158.e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Alzahrani A, et al. Comprehensive analysis of the clinical and urodynamic outcomes of secondary tethered spinal cord before and after spinal cord untethering. J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12:101.e1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hsieh MH, et al. The effects of detethering on the urodynamics profile in children with a tethered cord. J Neurosurg. 2006;105:391–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kothari MJ, et al. Electrophysiological and urodynamic studies to monitor surgical outcome in children with tethered spinal cords. Muscle Nerve. 1995;18:1373–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Metcalfe PD, et al. Treatment of the occult tethered spinal cord for neuropathic bladder: results of sectioning the filum terminale. J Urol. 2006;176:1826–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Veenboer PW, et al. Paucity of evidence for urinary tract outcomes in closed spinal dysraphism: a systematic review. BJU Int. 2013;112:1009–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Tarcan T, et al. Long-term follow-up of newborns with myelodysplasia and normal urodynamic findings: is follow-up necessary? J Urol. 2001;165:564–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamBirminghamUSA
  2. 2.Beverly P. Head Chair in Pediatric UrologyChildren’s of AlabamaBirminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations