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:
Benefits of early stabilization of femoral shaft fractures, in mitigation of pulmonary and other complications, have been recognized over the past decades. Investigation into the appropriate level of resuscitation, and other measures of readiness for definitive fixation, versus a damage control strategy have been ongoing. These principles are now being applied to fractures of the thoracolumbar spine, pelvis, and acetabulum. Systems of trauma care are evolving to encompass attention to expeditious and safe management of not only multiply injured patients with these major fractures, but also definitive care for hip and periprosthetic fractures, which pose a similar burden of patient recumbency until stabilized. Future directions regarding refinement of patient resuscitation, assessment, and treatment are anticipated, as is the potential for data sharing and registries in enhancing trauma system functionality. Cite this article:
