
Editorial
Select search scope: search across all journals or within the current journal

On April 25, 2015, a 7.8 magnitude earthquake occurred in Nepal; then on the afternoon of May 12, 2015, the small Himalayan nation experienced a second 7.3 magnitude earthquake. As of the writing of this commentary, the estimate of casualties has surpassed 8,500 making it the deadliest natural disaster in Nepal over the past 80 years. Technological advancesin emergency medicine and emergency preparedness have increased the likelihood of surviving a disaster. The result, however, is that populations often survive with complex disabilities that the health infrastructure struggles to accommodate in the early post-disaster period. Nepal had a relatively poor infrastructure for people with disabilities before the earthquake, and the health system will now will be challenged to meet their needs into the future. In this commentary, we argue that there were at least three main lessons learned for the rehabilitation sector following the 2015 earthquake. First, rehabilitation can facilitate earlier discharge from hospitals thereby improving the overall institutional capacity to treat a higher number of patients; second, rehabilitation can prevent secondary musculoskeletal, integumentary and pulmonary complications; and third, rehabilitation improves function so that individuals can have better access to other essential post-disaster services. While rehabilitation may not directly save ‘lives’ following a natural disaster such as an earthquake, it does save ‘life’ among the survivors. In our opinion, and given what we have learned regarding the role of rehabilitation in Nepal and other disasters, we argue that it is unethical and immoral not to integrate rehabilitation into disaster response.
Spinal pathology commonly features in physiotherapy caseloads and a detailed knowledge of the features of Cauda Equina Syndrome (CES) is essential. While CES is a rare presentation, if missed the consequences of permanent bladder, bowel and sexual dysfunction are devastating. CES has a varied presentation in terms of chronology and symptomatology, leading to difficulty in accurate diagnosis in a clinical setting. The case study of a 48 year old female who developed CES while attending physiotherapy is presented. Her subjective and physical examination findings together with her lumbar Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) findings are outlined. The patient underwent an L5/S1 subtotal laminectomy and discectomy and the patient’s status at eight months post-operatively is presented. A comprehensive review of the aetiology, sub-classifications and clinical features of CES is also provided.


