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:
We compared decompression alone to decompression with fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). The aim was to evaluate if five-year outcomes differed between the groups. The two-year results from the same trial revealed no differences. The Swedish Spinal Stenosis Study was a multicentre randomized controlled trial with recruitment from September 2006 to February 2012. A total of 247 patients with one- or two-level central lumbar spinal stenosis, stratified by the presence of DS, were randomized to decompression alone or decompression with fusion. The five-year Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), visual analogue scales for back and leg pain, and patient-reported satisfaction, decreased pain, and increased walking distance. The reoperation rate was recorded.Aims
Methods
The aims of this study were first, to determine if adding fusion to a decompression of the lumbar spine for spinal stenosis decreases the rate of radiological restenosis and/or proximal adjacent level stenosis two years after surgery, and second, to evaluate the change in vertebral slip two years after surgery with and without fusion. The Swedish Spinal Stenosis Study (SSSS) was conducted between 2006 and 2012 at five public and two private hospitals. Six centres participated in this two-year MRI follow-up. We randomized 222 patients with central lumbar spinal stenosis at one or two adjacent levels into two groups, decompression alone and decompression with fusion. The presence or absence of a preoperative spondylolisthesis was noted. A new stenosis on two-year MRI was used as the primary outcome, defined as a dural sac cross-sectional area ≤ 75 mm2 at the operated level (restenosis) and/or at the level above (proximal adjacent level stenosis).Aims
Methods
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
With recent progress in cancer treatment, the number of advanced-age patients with spinal metastases has been increasing. It is important to clarify the influence of advanced age on outcomes following surgery for spinal metastases, especially with a focus on subjective health state values. We prospectively analyzed 101 patients with spinal metastases who underwent palliative surgery from 2013 to 2016. These patients were divided into two groups based on age (< 70 years and ≥ 70 years). The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), Barthel index (BI), and EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) score were assessed at study enrolment and at one, three, and six months after surgery. The survival times and complications were also collected.Aims
Methods
The aims of this study were to compare the use of resources, costs, and quality of life outcomes associated with subacromial decompression, arthroscopy only (placebo surgery), and no treatment for subacromial pain in the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS), and to estimate their cost-effectiveness. The use of resources, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed in the trial at six months and one year. Results were extrapolated to two years after randomization. Differences between treatment arms, based on the intention-to-treat principle, were adjusted for covariates and missing data were handled using multiple imputation. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated, with uncertainty around the values estimated using bootstrapping.Aims
Patients and Methods
There is no universally agreed definition of
cauda equina syndrome (CES). Clinical signs of CES including direct
rectal examination (DRE) do not reliably correlate with cauda equina (CE)
compression on MRI. Clinical assessment only becomes reliable if
there are symptoms/signs of late, often irreversible, CES. The only
reliable way of including or excluding CES is to perform MRI on
all patients with suspected CES. If the diagnosis is being considered,
MRI should ideally be performed locally in the District General
Hospitals within one hour of the question being raised irrespective
of the hour or the day. Patients with symptoms and signs of CES
and MRI confirmed CE compression should be referred to the local
spinal service for emergency surgery. CES can be subdivided by the degree of neurological deficit (bilateral
radiculopathy, incomplete CES or CES with retention of urine) and
also by time to surgical treatment (12, 24, 48 or 72 hour). There
is increasing understanding that damage to the cauda equina nerve roots
occurs in a continuous and progressive fashion which implies that
there are no safe time or deficit thresholds. Neurological deterioration
can occur rapidly and is often associated with longterm poor outcomes.
It is not possible to predict which patients with a large central
disc prolapse compressing the CE nerve roots are going to deteriorate neurologically
nor how rapidly. Consensus guidelines from the Society of British Neurological
Surgeons and British Association of Spinal Surgeons recommend decompressive
surgery as soon as practically possible which for many patients
will be urgent/emergency surgery at any hour of the day or night. Cite this article:
