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: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(4):347–355.

Aims. 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). Methods. 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. Results. The final analyses comprised 159 patients in the early and 135 in the late group. Patients in the early group had significantly more severe neurological impairment before surgical treatment. For unadjusted complete-case analysis, mean change in LEMS was 15.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 12.1 to 19.0) in the early and 11.3 (95% CI 8.3 to 14.3) in the late group, with a mean between-group difference of 4.3 (95% CI -0.3 to 8.8). Using multiply imputed data adjusting for baseline LEMS, baseline ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS), and propensity score, the mean between-group difference in the change in LEMS decreased to 2.2 (95% CI -1.5 to 5.9). Conclusion. Compared to late surgical decompression, early surgical decompression following acute tSCI did not result in statistically significant or clinically meaningful neurological improvements 12 months after injury. These results, however, do not impact the well-established need for acute, non-surgical tSCI management. This is the first study to highlight that a combination of baseline imbalances, ceiling effects, and loss to follow-up rates may yield an overestimate of the effect of early surgical decompression in unadjusted analyses, which underpins the importance of adjusted statistical analyses in acute tSCI research. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(4):400–411

Study Design & Setting: Prospective multi-center longitudinal cohort study within the ‘European Multicenter Study of Human Spinal Cord Injury’ (EM-SCI) consortium. Introduction: Determination between complete and incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI) is commonly applied in prognosticating patients’ functional recovery. Complete and incomplete injury is defined by absence or presence of at least 1 of 4 ASIA sacral sparing (SS) criteria. To date, however, the ASIA SS criteria have not been validated with respect to chronic phase functional outcomes. Objectives: To validate the prognostic value of the acute phase sacral sparing (SS) measurements regarding to chronic phase ambulation in traumatic SCI patients. Methods: In 251 patients, acute phase (0–15 days) ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS) grades, ASIA SS measurements and chronic phase (6 or 12 months) Timed Up & Go (TUG) outcome measurements were analyzed. Calculation of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV/NPV), univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed in all 4 SS criteria. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) ratios of all regression equations were calculated. Results: In completing the 1-year follow-up TUG test, presence of voluntary anal contraction (VAC) showed the best PPV (94.3%, p< 0.001, 95% CI: 80.8–99.3). Best NPV was reported in the S4–5 light touch (LT) score (96.9%, p< 0.001, 95% CI: 92.9–98.9). Presence of anal sensation in the traumatic SCI patients resulted in a PPV of 41% (p=0.124). Use of the combination VAC and S4–5 LT score (AUC: 0.917, p< 0.001, 95% CI: 0.868–0.966) showed significantly better (p< 0.001, 95% CI: 0.042–0.102) discriminating results in 1-year TUG test prognosis than with use of currently used distinction between complete and incomplete SCI (AUC: 0.845, p< 0.001, 95% CI: 0.790–0.901). Conclusion: Out of the 4 sacral sparing criteria, VAC and S4–5 LT scores are the only acute phase measurements contributing significantly to the prognosis of ambulation. With the combination of acute phase VAC and S4–5 LT scores, significantly better chronic phase ambulation prognosis can be predicted than with use of currently used distinction between complete and incomplete SCI. This study stresses the importance of further research on functional predictive algorithms in the acute setting of traumatic SCI care

Our knowledge regarding neurological recovery following spinal cord injury is like a tip of an iceberg. Spinal cord does not regenerate once damaged but nerve roots do so if an optimum environment is provided. Although distal neurological recovery is unlikely in ASIA Impairment Scale A (complete lesions), root recovery at the site of injury can occur. ASIA has recognized Zone of partial preservation & Zonal segmental recovery below the neurological level. Such a recovery in motor functions (Motor segmental recovery-MSR) of lumbar roots in paraplegia may make all the difference in final outcome of ambulation & functional status of the patient. 100 Thoracolumbar injuries in ASIA A underwent surgery. In 60, Posterior instrumentation alone (Gp1) and in 40 posterior instrumentation with laminectomy (Gp2) was done. Results of these were compared with randomly picked up 100 similar cases treated conservatively (Gp3). Meritsofsurgery(Gp1& Gp2)overconservative(Gp3) were many in terms of reduction & stability, pain-function scores, total hospital stay, ambulation mode and time. At 1 year follow-up, functional distal neurological recovery (FDNR) was said to be significant when ASIA A improved up to ASIA D/E and MSR was said to be significant (MSR-Sig) when key muscle had a power > III. In Gp3, FDNR was (7/100) 7% and MSR-Sig was (40/100) 40%. In Gp1 FDNR was(7/60) 11.67% and MSR-Sig (41/60) 68.33%. When laminectomy was added with instrumentation (Gp2) FDNR was (5/40) 12.5% and MSR-Sig was found in (37/40) 92% cases. This was especially beneficial in thoracolumbar injuries where MSR-Sig of the L2 & L3 roots made all the difference between an ambulatory life (with braces) and an otherwise permanent wheel chair bound life. Motor segmental recovery becomes a blessing in disguise in complete cases of spinal cord injury where distal recovery of spinal cord is unlikely to occur