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:
There is a trend towards the use of double-bundle techniques for the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. This has not been substantiated scientifically. The functional outcome of these techniques is equivalent to that of single-bundle methods. The main advantage of a double-bundle rather than a single-bundle reconstruction should be a better rotational stability, but the validity and accuracy of systems for the measurement of rotational stability have not been confirmed. Despite the enthusiasm of surgeons for the double-bundle technique, reconstruction with a single-bundle should remain the standard method for managing deficiency of the anterior cruciate ligament until strong evidence in favour of the use of the double-bundle method is available.
Randomised controlled trials represent the gold standard in the evaluation of outcome of treatment. They are needed because differences between treatment effects have been minimised and observational studies may give a biased estimation of the outcome. However, conducting this kind of trial is challenging. Several methodological issues, including patient or surgeon preference, blinding, surgical standardisation, as well as external validity, have to be addressed in order to lower the risk of bias. Specific tools have been developed in order to take into account the specificity of evaluation of the literature on non-pharmacological intervention. A better knowledge of methodological issues will allow the orthopaedic surgeon to conduct more appropriate studies and to better appraise the limits of his intervention.
