✓Tethered cord syndrome (TCS) is a stretch-induced functional disorder of the spinal cord due to the fact that its caudal portion is anchored by an inelastic structure. The functional lesion of TCS is generally situated in the lumbosacral cord, and many authors have shown that the syndrome is reversible via surgery to untether the cord. To clarify the expressions relevant to TCS, such as “cord tethering” and “tethered cord,” the authors have formulated three categories. These categories include cases that show the anatomical appearance of spinal cord stretching. Among them, Category 1 is isolated to represent the “true TCS.” The authors focus their discussion of the pathophysiology of TCS on Category 1 to explain the impaired oxidative metabolism and electrophysiological derangements within the tethered spinal cord, which is the primary intrinsic cause of the dysfunction. Furthermore, they extend the discussion to the extrinsic (outside the spinal cord) factors and other complex conditions that mimic TCS.

Tethered cord syndrome (TCS) is a stretch-induced functional disorder of the spinal cord. The mechanical cause of TCS is an inelastic structure anchoring the caudal end of the spinal cord that prevents cephalad movement of the lumbosacral cord. Stretching of the spinal cord occurs in patients either when the spinal column grows faster than the spinal cord or when the spinal cord undergoes forcible flexion and extension. Research in patients and experimental animals suggests that there is a link between the clinical dysfunctions that characterize TCS and putative pathophysiological changes that accompany this syndrome. Among these changes are depression of electrophysiological activity and shifts in the reduction/oxidation ratio of cytochrome oxidase. The latter suggests that there is impairment of oxidative metabolism. These putative pathophysiological changes in TCS occur mainly within the lumbosacral cord under excessive tension. The authors discuss the pathophysiology of TCS and examine related symptoms.

Type I toxin–antitoxin loci consist of two genes: a small, hydrophobic, potentially toxic protein, and a small RNA (sRNA) antitoxin. The sRNA represses toxin gene expression by base pairing to the toxin mRNA. A previous bioinformatics search predicted a duplicated type I locus within Escherichia coli O157:H7 (EHEC), which we have named the gene pairs zorO-orzO and zorP-orzP. We show that overproduction of the zorO gene is toxic to E. coli; co-expression of the sRNA OrzO can neutralize this toxicity, confirming that the zorO-orzO pair is a true type I toxin–antitoxin locus. However, OrzO is unable to repress zorO in a strain deleted for RNase III, indicating that repression requires cleavage of the target mRNA. Sequence analysis and mutagenesis studies have elucidated a nucleotide sequence region (V1) that allows differential recognition of the zorO mRNA by OrzO and not OrzP, and a specific single nucleotide within the V1 of OrzO that is critical for repression of zorO. Although there are 18 nt of complementarity between the OrzO sRNA and the zorO mRNA, not all base pairing interactions are needed for repression; however, the amount needed is dependent on whether there is continuous or discontinuous complementarity to the target mRNA.

This article clarifies the reversible lesions that occur in the cord segments above any of the inelastic abnormalities. These lesions are found mostly in the lumbosacral cord, occasionally in the cervical cord and closely correlate with clinical findings. Imaging studies alone do not allow accurate diagnosis of the TCS. The authors emphasize the importance of adhering to the physiological terms "tethered cord syndrome" and "tethered spinal cord" to avoid controversies derived from terms that are not based on the pathophysiology of TCS.

Cerebral AVMs are known to be a source of intracranial hemorrhages and epileptic seizures. Their natural history indicates approximately 15% mortality and 35% morbidity over a 15-year period. This significant mortality and morbidity mandates a need for satisfactory treatment of this entity, ideally by elimination of AVMs. Microsurgical resection, endovascular embolization and radiosurgery (irradiation) are the three effective modes of treatment currently available. However, no objective criteria have been established for which mode(s) of treatment should be selected for individual patients with AVMs. Considering the complexity of AVMs and variable conditions of individual patients, neurosurgeons, intravascular interventionalists and radiosurgeons must make their own decisions on how to treat each patient based on their experience. In practice, treatment of small AVMs in non-functional areas is favored equally by each of these specialists, while they tend to avoid treatment of large AVMs, particularly those in functional areas of the brain. The authors report the surgical intervention of large AVMs, including those located in functional areas of the hemisphere by special techniques. One can demonstrate AVM compartments by using angiography and with the aid of color Doppler ultrasonography, each compartment can be outlined and dissected individually until all the compartments are isolated without causing any damage to the surrounding brain and the entire AVM is rendered shrunken and then removed. The concept of compartmental treatment of AVMs may be applied in the future to radiosurgery and intravascular embolization of large AVMs.