4.4 Review

Management of Tarlov cysts: an uncommon but potentially serious spinal column disease-review of the literature and experience with over 1000 referrals

Journal

NEURORADIOLOGY
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00234-023-03226-6

Keywords

Tarlov cysts; Cerebral spinal fluid; Coccygodynia; Fibrin sealant; Magnetic resonance imaging; Sacral dermatomes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Tarlov cysts were initially considered anatomical variations of uncertain etiology and clinical significance. However, increasing evidence suggests that these cysts can have a significant impact on patients' health and well-being. Women are more likely to be affected, experiencing long-standing pain and neurological dysfunctions. There is currently no consensus on patient selection or management approaches for symptomatic Tarlov cysts.
Tarlov cysts were thought to be anatomic variants of uncertain etiology and clinical significance when initially described over 80 years ago. They are often detected in routine lumbosacral imaging and generally not reported in a differential diagnosis. There is increasing evidence that at least some Tarlov cysts are symptomatic and can have a significant adverse impact on patients' health and well-being. Women are disproportionately affected with this condition, often presenting with long-standing pain and neurological dysfunctions. Significant gender bias has been a concern in the management of these patients. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on patient selection or management approaches for symptomatic Tarlov cysts. This review article updates information on the prevalence, diagnosis, clinical significance, and treatments of these cysts. Based on these findings and experience with over 1000 patient referrals, a treatment decision algorithm for symptomatic Tarlov cysts was constructed to provide guidance for appropriate management of patients with these complex cysts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available