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.

Objectives

Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) stimulation was evaluated after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedures in a randomized, controlled clinical study performed for United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. PEMF significantly increased fusion rates at six months, but 12-month fusion outcomes for subjects at elevated risk for pseudoarthrosis were not thoroughly reported. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the effect of PEMF treatment on subjects at increased risk for pseudoarthrosis after ACDF procedures.

We carried out a prospective study to determine whether the addition of a recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (rhBMP-2) to a machined allograft spacer would improve the rate of intervertebral body fusion in the spine. We studied 77 patients who were to undergo an interbody fusion with allograft and instrumentation. The first 36 patients received allograft with adjuvant rhBMP-2 (allograft/rhBMP-2 group), and the next 41, allograft and demineralised bone matrix (allograft/demineralised bone matrix group). Each patient was assessed clinically and radiologically both pre-operatively and at each follow-up visit using standard methods. Follow-up continued for two years.

Every patient in the allograft/rhBMP-2 group had fused by six months. However, early graft lucency and significant (> 10%) subsidence were seen radiologically in 27 of 55 levels in this group. The mean graft height subsidence was 27% (13% to 42%) for anterior lumbar interbody fusion, 24% (13% to 40%) for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, and 53% (40% to 58%) for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Those who had undergone fusion using allograft and demineralised bone matrix lost only a mean of 4.6% (0% to 15%) of their graft height.

Although a high rate of fusion (100%) was achieved with rhBMP-2, significant subsidence occurred in more than half of the levels (23 of 37) in the lumbar spine and 33% (6 of 18) in the cervical spine. A 98% fusion rate (62 of 63 levels) was achieved without rhBMP-2 and without the associated graft subsidence. Consequently, we no longer use rhBMP-2 with allograft in our practice if the allograft has to provide significant structural support.