Initial treatment of traumatic spinal cord injury remains as controversial in 2023 as it was in the early 19th century, when Sir Astley Cooper and Sir Charles Bell debated the merits or otherwise of surgery to relieve cord compression. There has been a lack of high-class evidence for early surgery, despite which expeditious intervention has become the surgical norm. This evidence deficit has been progressively addressed in the last decade and more modern statistical methods have been used to clarify some of the issues, which is demonstrated by the results of the SCI-POEM trial. However, there has never been a properly conducted trial of surgery versus active conservative care. As a result, it is still not known whether early surgery or active physiological management of the unstable injured spinal cord offers the better chance for recovery. Surgeons who care for patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries in the acute setting should be aware of the arguments on all sides of the debate, a summary of which this annotation presents. Cite this article:
The aim of this study was to determine whether early surgical treatment results in better neurological recovery 12 months after injury than late surgical treatment in patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI). Patients with tSCI requiring surgical spinal decompression presenting to 17 centres in Europe were recruited. Depending on the timing of decompression, patients were divided into early (≤ 12 hours after injury) and late (> 12 hours and < 14 days after injury) groups. The American Spinal Injury Association neurological (ASIA) examination was performed at baseline (after injury but before decompression) and at 12 months. The primary endpoint was the change in Lower Extremity Motor Score (LEMS) from baseline to 12 months.Aims
Methods
This review provides a concise outline of the advances made in the care of patients and to the quality of life after a traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) over the last century. Despite these improvements reversal of the neurological injury is not yet possible. Instead, current treatment is limited to providing symptomatic relief, avoiding secondary insults and preventing additional sequelae. However, with an ever-advancing technology and deeper understanding of the damaged spinal cord, this appears increasingly conceivable. A brief synopsis of the most prominent challenges facing both clinicians and research scientists in developing functional treatments for a progressively complex injury are presented. Moreover, the multiple mechanisms by which damage propagates many months after the original injury requires a multifaceted approach to ameliorate the human spinal cord. We discuss potential methods to protect the spinal cord from damage, and to manipulate the inherent inhibition of the spinal cord to regeneration and repair. Although acute and chronic SCI share common final pathways resulting in cell death and neurological deficits, the underlying putative mechanisms of chronic SCI and the treatments are not covered in this review.
To employ a simple and fast method to evaluate those patients with neurological deficits and misplaced screws in relatively safe lumbosacral spine, and to determine if it is necessary to undertake revision surgery. A total of 316 patients were treated by fixation of lumbar and lumbosacral transpedicle screws at our institution from January 2011 to December 2012. We designed the criteria for post-operative revision scores of pedicle screw malpositioning (PRSPSM) in the lumbosacral canal. We recommend the revision of the misplaced pedicle screw in patients with PRSPSM = 5′ as early as possible. However, patients with PRSPSM < 5′ need to follow the next consecutive assessment procedures. A total of 15 patients were included according to at least three-stage follow-up.Objectives
Methods
