Search

Background and Objectives: Interhospital transfer from community hospitals to centers specialized in managing traumatically injured individuals can strain patients, healthcare systems, and delay appropriate care. The purpose was to compare long-term neurological outcomes in transferred or directly admitted patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI)., Methods: An ambispective cohort study was conducted using prospectively collected data (between 2005 and 2018) from 11 specialized level 1 trauma centers across the United States and Canada. All patients who underwent surgical management for SCI were included and placed into 2 comparison cohorts: (1) direct admission and (2) transfer from intermediate hospital. Outcomes were change in American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale grade and its components: upper-extremity motor, lower-extremity motor, pinprick, and light touch scores from baseline (assessed ≤72 hours after injury) to follow-up (12-52 weeks). Nearest-neighbor 1:1 propensity score matching between the transferred and directly admitted cohorts was performed. Paired analysis using McNemar's test and paired Student's t -test was used to determine the extent of the difference in neurological outcomes., Results: Nine hundred seventy patients (55.5% male, 55.2 ± 18.9 years) with traumatic SCI were directly admitted to a specialized trauma center (N = 474, 48.9%) or transferred from an intermediate hospital (N = 496, 51.1%). After propensity score matching, 283 pairs were matched. Compared with a matched cohort of transferred patients, American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale grade improved more in directly admitted patients (56.2% vs 46.3%, P = .024), as did upper-extremity motor score (13.7 ± 12.8 vs 10.4 ± 11.5, P = .018) and light touch score (22.0 ± 29.7 vs 16.9 ± 26.6, P = .034)., Conclusion: Patients with SCI directly admitted to specialized trauma centers have greater neurological recovery compared with patients transferred from an intermediate hospital. Feasibility of direct admission to a center specialized in the management of acute SCI through implementation of a standardized code program must be further investigated., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic level II., (Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2023. All rights reserved.)

Background: Decompression of the injured spinal cord confers neuroprotection. Compared with timing of surgery, verification of surgical decompression is understudied., Objective: To compare the judgment of cervical spinal cord decompression using real-time intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) following laminectomy with postoperative MRI and CT myelography., Methods: Fifty-one patients were retrospectively reviewed. Completeness of decompression was evaluated by real-time IOUS and compared with postoperative MRI (47 cases) and CT myelography (4 cases)., Results: Five cases (9.8%) underwent additional laminectomy after initial IOUS evaluation to yield a final judgment of adequate decompression using IOUS in all 51 cases (100%). Postoperative MRI/CT myelography showed adequate decompression in 43 cases (84.31%). Six cases had insufficient bony decompression, of which 3 (50%) had cerebrospinal fluid effacement at >1 level. Two cases had severe circumferential intradural swelling despite adequate bony decompression. Between groups with and without adequate decompression on postoperative MRI/CT myelography, there were significant differences for American Spinal Injury Association motor score, American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale grade, AO Spine injury morphology, and intramedullary lesion length (IMLL). Multivariate analysis using stepwise variable selection and logistic regression showed that preoperative IMLL was the most significant predictor of inadequate decompression on postoperative imaging (P = .024)., Conclusion: Patients with severe clinical injury and large IMLL were more likely to have inadequate decompression on postoperative MRI/CT myelography. IOUS can serve as a supplement to postoperative MRI/CT myelography for the assessment of spinal cord decompression. However, further investigation, additional surgeon experience, and anticipation of prolonged swelling after surgery are required., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons.)

Objective: In patients with traumatic cervical spinal cord injury (tCSCI), the potential role of intraoperative neuromonitoring as a prognostic tool has been insufficiently studied. This study aimed to determine if detectable signals during intraoperative neuromonitoring portend a greater likelihood of recovery for patients with tCSCI., Methods: Patients who underwent decompression and surgical fixation following tCSCI were retrospectively reviewed through previously prospectively collected data from the Surgical Timing in Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study. Improvement in American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) motor score and ASIA Impairment Scale grade conversion rates at final follow-up were compared between patients with detectable intraoperative neuromonitoring somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) signals and those without detectable signals., Results: Forty-nine patients had intraoperative neuromonitoring. Patients with incomplete tCSCI had detectable lower extremity SSEPs more often than patients with complete tCSCI (56.3% vs. 23.5%, P = 0.028). There was no difference in detectable upper extremity SSEPs between complete and incomplete tCSCI (65.6% vs. 58.8%, P = 0.638). Of the 17 patients with complete tCSCI, patients with detectable lower extremity SSEPs had ASIA motor scores similar to the nondetectable cohort on admission (21.5 vs. 16.2, P = 0.609) but higher ASIA motor scores at final follow-up (57.5 vs. 27.1, P = 0.041). Of the 32 patients with incomplete spinal cord injury, there was no difference in grade conversion or motor scores between detectable and nondetectable SSEP cohorts., Conclusions: The presence of upper extremity SSEP signals in patients who present with complete tCSCI portends greater improvement in ASIA motor scores and likelihood of American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale grade conversion at final follow-up., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Expansion duraplasty to reopen effaced subarachnoid space and improve spinal cord perfusion, autoregulation, and spinal pressure reactivity index (sPRX) has been advocated in patients with traumatic cervical spinal cord injury (tCSCI). We designed this study to identify candidates for expansion duraplasty, based on the absence of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) interface around the spinal cord on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), in the setting of otherwise adequate bony decompression. Over a 61-month period, 104 consecutive American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) grades A-C patients with tCSCI had post-operative MRI to assess the adequacy of surgical decompression. Their mean age was 53.4 years, and 89% were male. Sixty-one patients had falls, 31 motor vehicle collisions, 11 sport injuries, and one an assault. The AIS grade was A in 56, B in 18, and C in 30 patients. Fifty-four patients had fracture dislocations; there was no evidence of skeletal injury in 50 patients. Mean intramedullary lesion length (IMLL) was 46.9 (standard deviation = 19.4) mm. Median time from injury to decompression was 17 h (interquartile range 15.2 h). After surgery, 94 patients had adequate decompression as judged by the presence of CSF anterior and posterior to the spinal cord, whereas 10 patients had effacement of the subarachnoid space at the injury epicenter. In two patients whose decompression was not definitive and post-operative MRI indicated inadequate decompression, expansion duraplasty was performed. Candidates for expansion duraplasty (i.e., those with inadequate decompression) were significantly younger ( p  < 0.0001), were AIS grade A ( p  < 0.0016), had either sport injuries (six patients) or motor vehicle collisions (three patients) ( p  < 0.0001), had fracture dislocation ( p  = 0.00016), and had longer IMLL ( p  = 0.0097). In regression models, patients with sport injuries and inadequate decompression were suitable candidates for expansion duraplasty ( p  = 0.03). Further, 9.6% of patients failed bony decompression alone and either did (2) or would have (8) benefited from expansion duraplasty.

Objective: To determine use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for management of spinal trauma as a function of the availability of an MRI scanner across AO regions., Methods: A survey regarding MRI availability and/or accessibility was conducted across 6 global AO regions. Questions were formulated to 1) evaluate availability of an MRI scanner and 2) whether the availability of an MRI scanner influenced time taken to image patients with spinal trauma. Pairwise comparison of responses among AO regions was performed., Results: The survey was sent to 5.813 AO Spine members and 561 completed surveys were obtained (Africa, 3%; Asia Pacific, 22.1%; Europe, 30.8%; Latin America, 25.7%; Middle East, 9.4%; and North America, 8.9%). On availability of MRI for spinal trauma, 31.9% reported that MRI was readily available at all times, 51.3% noted 24-hour availability, but more difficult to obtain during nighttime, and 8.7% reported not having an MRI at their hospital. On time taken to obtain scans if MRI is readily available, 32.4% responded that imaging was obtained within 1 hour, whereas 39.9% stated between 1 and 4 hours. On time taken to obtain scans when MRI is least available, 7% responded that imaging was completed within 1 hour whereas 31.4% stated between 1 and 4 hours. Responses from Latin America significantly differed (P < 0.05) from all other AO regions except Africa., Conclusions: MRI use varies across AO regions, with clinical decision making on obtaining MRI in spinal trauma being influenced heavily by the availability of an MRI scanner., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: The AOSpine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System was introduced to improve communication, clinical management, and research. Here, the system was studied in relation to injury severity along with admission and long term neurologic follow-up., Methods: A retrospective study was performed in subaxial cervical spine injury patients. Morphology was classified using the AOSpine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System. Six major morphology subtypes were selected for analysis. The American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) motor and Abbreviated Injury Severity (AIS) scores were recorded at admission and at follow-up >6 months. Admission intramedullary lesion length (IMLL) on MRI was recorded., Results: In all, 82 patients met criteria for analysis. The mean follow-up time was 11 months (range, 6-33 months). The were 36 patients with morphology subtypes A0, 4 with A1/A2, 9 with A3/A4, 8 with B2, 11 with B3, and 14 with C. The A1/2 subtype had the least severe injuries on admission. The C and A3/A4 subtypes had the most severe injuries. The subtype C had the lowest ASIA Motor Score (AMS) and second highest percentage of complete injuries. A3/A4 patients had the highest percentage of complete injuries on admission. At follow-up, A3/A4 patients had the lowest AMS, and 33% of patients continued to have complete injuries. C subtype injuries all converted to AIS incomplete injuries on follow-up (P = 0.04). IMLL was found to be significantly different compared across multiple morphologic subtypes. Surgical management for each morphology subtype was reported., Conclusion: The AOSpine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System successfully associated injury morphology with IMLL along with admission and long-term neurologic function and recovery., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Cervical spine injury classification systems should be simple, easy to relate and remember, reliable guide for surgical planning, and predictor of outcome in clinical settings. We investigated whether the AOSpine subaxial cervical spine classification system predicted injury severity and neurologic outcome., Material and Methods: We analyzed the relevant clinical, imaging, management, and American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) impairment scale (AIS) grade conversion of 92 AIS grades A-C patients with cervical spine injury. We correlated morphology class with age, injury severity score (ISS), follow-up ASIA motor score (AMS), intramedullary lesion length (IMLL), and AIS grade conversion at 6 months after injury., Results: The mean age of patients was 39.3 years, 83 were men, and 69 were injured during an automobile accident or after a fall. The AOSpine class was A4 in 8, B2 in 5, B2A4 in 16, B3 in 19, and C in 44 patients. The mean ISS was 29.7 and AMS was 17.1. AIS grade was A in 48, B in 25, and C in 19 patients. Mean IMLL on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging was 72 mm: A4 = 68.1; B2A4 = 86.5; B2 = 59.3; B3 = 46.8; and C = 79.9. At a mean follow-up of 6 months, the mean AMS was 39.6. Compared to patients with class B3 injuries, those with class C injuries were significantly younger (P < 0.0001), had longer IMLL (P < 0.002), and were less likely to have AIS grade conversion to a better grade (P < 0.02)., Conclusions: The AOSpine subaxial cervical spine injury classification system successfully predicted injury severity (longer IMLL) and chances of neurologic recovery (AIS grade conversion) across different class subtypes.

Background Context: There is no outcome instrument specifically designed and validated for spine trauma patients without complete paralysis, which makes it difficult to compare outcomes of different treatments of the spinal column injury within and between studies., Purpose: The paper aimed to report on the evidence-based consensus process that resulted in the selection of core International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) categories, as well as the response scale for use in a universal patient-reported outcome measure for patients with traumatic spinal column injury., Study Design/setting: The study used a formal decision-making and consensus process., Patient Sample: The sample includes patients with a primary diagnosis of traumatic spinal column injury, excluding completely paralyzed and polytrauma patients., Outcome Measures: The wide array of function and health status of patients with traumatic spinal column injury was explored through the identification of all potentially meaningful ICF categories., Methods: A formal decision-making and consensus process integrated evidence from four preparatory studies. Three studies aimed to identify relevant ICF categories from three different perspectives. The research perspective was covered by a systematic literature review identifying outcome measures focusing on the functioning and health of spine trauma patients. The expert perspective was explored through an international web-based survey among spine surgeons from the five AOSpine International world regions. The patient perspective was investigated in an international empirical study. A fourth study investigated various response scales for their potential use in the future universal outcome instrument. This work was supported by AOSpine. AOSpine is a clinical division of the AO Foundation, an independent medically guided non-profit organization. The AOSpine Knowledge Forums are pathology-focused working groups acting on behalf of AOSpine in their domain of scientific expertise., Results: Combining the results of the preparatory studies, the list of ICF categories presented at the consensus conference included 159 different ICF categories. Based on voting and discussion, 11 experts from 6 countries selected a total of 25 ICF categories as core categories for patient-reported outcome measurement in adult traumatic spinal column injury patients (9 body functions, 14 activities and participation, and 2 environmental factors). The experts also agreed to use the Numeric Rating Scale 0-100 as response scale in the future universal outcome instrument., Conclusions: A formal consensus process integrating evidence and expert opinion led to a set of 25 core ICF categories for patient-reported outcome measurement in adult traumatic spinal column injury patients, as well as the response scale for use in the future universal disease-specific outcome instrument. The adopted core ICF categories could also serve as a benchmark for assessing the content validity of existing and future outcome instruments used in this specific patient population., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The goal of the current study is to establish a surgical algorithm to accompany the AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system., Methods: A survey was sent to AOSpine members from the six AO regions of the world, and surgeons were asked if a patient should undergo an initial trial of conservative management or if surgical management was warranted. The survey consisted of controversial injury patterns. Using the results of the survey, a surgical algorithm was developed., Results: The AOSpine Trauma Knowledge forum defined that the injuries in which less than 30% of surgeons would recommend surgical intervention should undergo a trial of non-operative care, and injuries in which 70% of surgeons would recommend surgery should undergo surgical intervention. Using these thresholds, it was determined that injuries with a thoracolumbar AOSpine injury score (TL AOSIS) of three or less should undergo a trial of conservative treatment, and injuries with a TL AOSIS of more than five should undergo surgical intervention. Operative or non-operative treatment is acceptable for injuries with a TL AOSIS of four or five., Conclusion: The current algorithm uses a meaningful injury classification and worldwide surgeon input to determine the initial treatment recommendation for thoracolumbar injuries. This allows for a globally accepted surgical algorithm for the treatment of thoracolumbar trauma.

Purpose: The aims of this study were (1) to demonstrate the AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system can be reliably applied by an international group of surgeons and (2) to delineate those injury types which are difficult for spine surgeons to classify reliably., Methods: A previously described classification system of thoracolumbar injuries which consists of a morphologic classification of the fracture, a grading system for the neurologic status and relevant patient-specific modifiers was applied to 25 cases by 100 spinal surgeons from across the world twice independently, in grading sessions 1 month apart. The results were analyzed for classification reliability using the Kappa coefficient (κ)., Results: The overall Kappa coefficient for all cases was 0.56, which represents moderate reliability. Kappa values describing interobserver agreement were 0.80 for type A injuries, 0.68 for type B injuries and 0.72 for type C injuries, all representing substantial reliability. The lowest level of agreement for specific subtypes was for fracture subtype A4 (Kappa = 0.19). Intraobserver analysis demonstrated overall average Kappa statistic for subtype grading of 0.68 also representing substantial reproducibility., Conclusion: In a worldwide sample of spinal surgeons without previous exposure to the recently described AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System, we demonstrated moderate interobserver and substantial intraobserver reliability. These results suggest that most spine surgeons can reliably apply this system to spine trauma patients as or more reliably than previously described systems.

Study Design: A systematic literature review., Objective: The aim of this study was (1) to identify patient-reported and clinician-based outcome measures most frequently used to evaluate the function and health of spine trauma patients, (2) to identify and quantify the concepts of these measures using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) as reference, and (3) to describe their clinimetric properties., Summary of Background Data: There is a real need for a disease-specific outcome instrument to measure the effect size of various treatment options in a variety of traumatic spinal column injuries., Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in several databases. From the included studies, outcome measures were extracted. The items and underlying concepts of the identified outcome measures were specified and linked to the ICF categories. Finally, as far as available in literature, the clinimetric properties of the obtained measures were analyzed., Results: Out of 5117 screened references, 245 were included, and 17 different frequently used outcome measures were identified. Meaningful concepts of the items and response options of the retrieved outcome measures were linked to a total of 105 different ICF categories, aggregated to 57 first- or second-level categories. The categories were linked to the components activities and participation (n = 31), body functions (n = 17), environmental factors (n = 8), and body structures (n = 1). Overall, there is only limited evidence on the measurement properties, except for some disease-specific questionnaires, such as Oswestry Disability Index, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Neck Disability Index, and Cervical Spine Outcome Questionnaire., Conclusion: The current systematic literature review revealed great diversity in the use and content of outcome measures to evaluate the functioning and health of spine trauma patients, with 17 different outcome measures linked to 57 unique ICF categories. This study creates an evidence base for a consensus meeting during which a core set of ICF categories for outcome measurement in spine trauma will be decided., Level of Evidence: 2.

Study Design: Empirical cross-sectional multicenter study., Objective: To identify the most commonly experienced problems by patients with traumatic spinal column injuries, excluding patients with complete paralysis., Summary of Background Data: There is no disease or condition-specific outcome instrument available that is designed or validated for patients with spine trauma, contributing to the present lack of consensus and ongoing controversies in the optimal treatment and evaluation of many types of spine injuries. Therefore, AOSpine Knowledge Forum Trauma started a project to develop such an instrument using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as its basis., Methods: Patients with traumatic spinal column injuries, within 13 months after discharge from hospital were recruited from 9 trauma centers in 7 countries, representing 4 AOSpine International world regions. Health professionals collected the data using the general ICF Checklist. The responses were analyzed using frequency analysis. Possible differences between the world regions and also between the subgroups of potential modifiers were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Fisher exact test., Results: In total, 187 patients were enrolled. A total of 38 (29.7%) ICF categories were identified as relevant for at least 20% of the patients. Categories experienced as a difficulty/impairment were most frequently related to activities and participation (n = 15), followed by body functions (n = 6), and body structures (n = 5). Furthermore, 12 environmental factors were considered to be a facilitator in at least 20% of the patients., Conclusion: Of 128 ICF categories of the general ICF Checklist, 38 ICF categories were identified as relevant. Loss of functioning and limitations in daily living seem to be more relevant for patients with traumatic spinal column injuries rather than pain during this time frame. This study creates an evidence base to define a core set of ICF categories for outcome measurement in adult spine trauma patients., Level of Evidence: 4.

Study Design: International web-based survey., Objective: To identify the most relevant aspects of human function and health status from the perspective of health care professionals involved in the treatment of spinal trauma patients., Summary of Background Data: There is no universally accepted outcome instrument available that is specifically designed or validated for spinal trauma patients, contributing to controversies related to the optimal treatment and evaluation of many types of spinal injuries. Therefore, the AOSpine Knowledge Forum Trauma aims to develop such an instrument using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) as its basis., Methods: Experts from the 5 AOSpine International world regions were asked to give their opinion on the relevance of a compilation of 143 ICF categories for spinal trauma patients on a 3-point scale: "not relevant," "probably relevant," or "definitely relevant." The responses were analyzed using frequency analysis. Possible differences in responses between the 5 world regions were analyzed with the Fisher exact test and descriptive statistics., Results: Of the 895 invited AOSpine International members, 150 (16.8%) participated in this study. A total of 13 (9.1%) ICF categories were identified as definitely relevant by more than 80% of the participants. Most of these categories were related to the ICF component "activities and participation" (n = 8), followed by "body functions" (n = 4), and "body structures" (n = 1). Only some minor regional differences were observed in the pattern of answers., Conclusion: More than 80% of an international group of health care professionals experienced in the clinical care of adult spinal trauma patients indicated 13 of 143 ICF categories as definitely relevant to measure outcomes after spinal trauma. This study creates an evidence base to define a core set of ICF categories for outcome measurement in adult spinal trauma patients.

Study Design: Multicenter retrospective study., Objective: To examine whether posttraumatic cervical spinal canal compromise and spinal cord compression are responsive to changes in motor and sensory functions., Summary of Background Data: The maximum canal compromise (MCC) and maximum spinal cord compression (MSCC) were developed to quantitatively assess canal stenosis and spinal cord compression using computed tomographic (CT) scan and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the setting of acute spine trauma., Methods: We included 100 consecutive patients with acute spine trauma. Patients were classified into three groups as follows: patients with acute spine trauma without spinal cord injury (group 1), patients with incomplete spinal cord injury (group 2), and patients with complete spinal cord injury (group 3). We studied three quantitative imaging parameters given as follows: MCC using CT-based measurements, MCC using T1-MRI based measurements, and MSCC using T2-MRI based measurements., Results: There were 78 male patients and 22 female patients with ages from 17 to 82 years (mean age = 45 years). In group 1, there were no significant differences regarding the mean MRI-MCC and MSCC among the spine levels. Although most spine levels were statistically comparable regarding the CT-MCC in patients of group 1, the C7 level significantly differed from the C3 level. Comparisons among all three patient groups showed significant differences regarding the mean MRI-MCC and MSCC, but no significant differences were observed in the mean CT-MCC between groups 1 and 2, and between groups 1 and 3. Data analyses using operating characteristics of each radiologic parameter indicated that only the MRI parameters had consistently optimal cutoff points to distinguish between groups 1 and 2, and between groups 2 and 3., Conclusion: Our results suggest that the MRI-based measurements of canal compromise and spinal cord compression are responsive to changes in motor and sensory functions. However, the MCC using CT-based measurements provides inconsistent results that can result in misdiagnosis in the clinical setting.

Study Design: The classification system was derived through a literature review and expert opinion of experienced spine surgeons. In addition, a multicenter reliability and validity study of the system was conducted on a collection of trauma cases., Objectives: To define a novel classification system for subaxial cervical spine trauma that conveys information about injury pattern, severity, treatment considerations, and prognosis. To evaluate reliability and validity of this system., Summary of Background Data: Classification of subaxial cervical spine injuries remains largely descriptive, lacking standardization and prognostic information., Methods: Clinical and radiographic variables encountered in subaxial cervical trauma were identified by a working section of the Spine Trauma Study Group. Significant limitations of existing systems were defined and addressed within the new system. This system, as well as the Harris and Ferguson & Allen systems, was applied by 20 spine surgeons to 11 cervical trauma cases. Six weeks later, the cases were randomly reordered and again scored. Interrater reliability, intrarater reliability, and validity were assessed., Results: Each of 3 main categories (injury morphology, disco-ligamentous complex, and neurologic status) identified as integrally important to injury classification was assigned a weighted score; the injury severity score was obtained by summing the scores from each category. Treatment options were assigned based on threshold values of the severity score. Interrater agreement as assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient of the DLC, morphology, and neurologic status scores was 0.49, 0.57, and 0.87, respectively. Intrarater agreement as assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient of the DLC, morphology, and neurologic status scores was 0.66, 0.75, and 0.90, respectively. Raters agreed with treatment recommendations of the algorithm in 93.3% of cases, suggesting high construct validity. The reliability compared favorably to the Harris and Ferguson & Allen systems., Conclusion: The Sub-axial Injury Classification and Severity Scale provides a comprehensive classification system for subaxial cervical trauma. Early validity and reliability data are encouraging.

Over the past four decades, there have been progressive changes in the epidemiology of traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI). We assessed trends in demographic and injury-related variables in traumatic cervical spinal cord injury (tCSCI) patients over an 18-year period at a single Level I trauma center. We included all magnetic resonance imaging–confirmed tCSCI patients ≥15 years of age for years 2001–2018. Among 1420 patients, 78.3% were male with a mean age 51.5 years. Etiology included falls (46.9%), motor vehicle collisions (MVCs; 34.2%), and sports injuries (10.9%). Median American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Motor Score (AMS) was 44, complete tCSCI was noted in 29.6% of patients, fracture dislocations were noted in 44.7%, and median intramedullary lesion length (IMLL) was 30.8 mm (complete injuries 56.3 mm and incomplete injuries 27.4 mm). Over the study period, mean age and proportion of falls increased (p < 0.001) whereas proportion attributable to MVCs and sports injuries decreased (p < 0.001). Incomplete injuries, AMS, and the proportion of patients with no fracture dislocations increased whereas complete injuries decreased significantly. IMLL declined (p = 0.17) and proportion with hematomyelia did not change significantly. In adjusted regression models, increase in age and decreases in prevalence of MVC mechanism and complete injuries over time remained statistically significant. Changes in demographic and injury-related characteristics of tCSCI patients over time may help explain the observed improvement in outcomes. Further, improved clinical outcomes and drop in IMLL may reflect improvements in initial risk assessment and pre-hospital management, advances in healthcare delivery, and preventive measures including public education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In cervical traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI), the therapeutic effect of timing of surgery on neurological recovery remains uncertain. Additionally, the relationship between extent of decompression, imaging biomarker evidence of injury severity, and outcome is incompletely understood. We investigated the effect of timing of decompression on long-term neurological outcome in patients with complete spinal cord decompression confirmed on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS) grade conversion was determined in 72 AIS grades A, B, and C patients 6 months after confirmed decompression. Thirty-two patients underwent decompressive surgery ultra-early (< 12 h), 25 underwent decompressive surgery early (12–24 h), and 15 underwent decompressive surgery late (> 24–138.5 h) after injury. Age, gender, injury mechanism, intramedullary lesion length (IMLL) on MRI, admission ASIA motor score, and surgical technique were not statistically different among groups. Motor complete patients (p = 0.009) and those with fracture dislocations (p = 0.01) tended to be operated on earlier. Improvement of one grade or more was present in 55.6% of AIS grade A, 60.9% of AIS grade B, and 86.4% of AIS grade C patients. Admission AIS motor score (p = 0.0004) and pre-operative IMLL (p = 0.00001) were the strongest predictors of neurological outcome. AIS grade improvement occurred in 65.6%, 60%, and 80% of patients who underwent decompression ultra-early, early, and late, respectively (p = 0.424). Multiple regression analysis revealed that IMLL was the only significant variable predictive of AIS grade conversion to a better grade (odds ratio, 0.908; confidence interval [CI], 0.862–0.957; p < 0.001). We conclude that in patients with post-operative MRI confirmation of complete decompression following cervical TSCI, pre-operative IMLL, not the timing of surgery, determines long-term neurological outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This project describes a morphology-based subaxial cervical spine traumatic injury classification system. Using the same approach as the thoracolumbar system, the goal was to develop a comprehensive yet simple classification system with high intra- and interobserver reliability to be used for clinical and research purposes.Methods: A subaxial cervical spine injury classification system was developed using a consensus process among clinical experts. All investigators were required to successfully grade 10 cases to demonstrate comprehension of the system before grading 30 additional cases on two occasions, 1 month apart. Kappa coefficients (κ) were calculated for intraobserver and interobserver reliability.Results: The classification system is based on three injury morphology types similar to the TL system: compression injuries (A), tension band injuries (B), and translational injuries (C), with additional descriptions for facet injuries, as well as patient-specific modifiers and neurologic status. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability was substantial for all injury subtypes (κ = 0.75 and 0.64, respectively).Conclusions: The AOSpine subaxial cervical spine injury classification system demonstrated substantial reliability in this initial assessment, and could be a valuable tool for communication, patient care and for research purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although there is a strong biological rationale for early decompression of the injured spinal cord, the influence of the timing of surgical decompression for acute spinal cord injury (SCI) remains debated, with substantial variability in clinical practice. We aimed to objectively evaluate the effect of timing of decompressive surgery for acute SCI on long-term neurological outcomes.Methods: We did a pooled analysis of individual patient data derived from four independent, prospective, multicentre data sources, including data from December, 1991, to March, 2017. Three of these studies had been published; of these, only one study previously specifically analysed the effect of the timing of surgical decompression. These four datasets were selected because they were among the highest quality acute SCI datasets available and contained highly granular data. Individual patient data were obtained by request from study authors. All patients who underwent decompressive surgery for acute SCI within these datasets were included. Patients were stratified into early (<24 h after spinal injury) and late (≥24 h after spinal injury) decompression groups. Neurological outcomes were assessed by American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA), or International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI), examination. The primary endpoint was change in total motor score from baseline to 1 year after spinal injury. Secondary endpoints were ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS) grade and change in upper-extremity motor, lower-extremity motor, light touch, and pin prick scores after 1 year. One-stage meta-analyses were done by hierarchical mixed-effects regression adjusting for baseline score, age, mechanism of injury, AIS grade, level of injury, and administration of methylprednisolone. Effect sizes were summarised by mean difference (MD) for sensorimotor scores and common odds ratio (cOR) for AIS grade, with corresponding 95% CIs. As a secondary analysis, change in total motor score was regressed against time to surgical decompression (h) as a continuous variable, using a restricted cubic spline with adjustment for the same covariates as in the primary analysis.Findings: We identified 1548 eligible patients from the four datasets. Outcome data at 1 year after spinal injury were available for 1031 patients (66·6%). Patients who underwent early surgical decompression (n=528) experienced greater recovery than patients who had late decompression surgery (n=1020) at 1 year after spinal injury; total motor scores improved by 23·7 points (95% CI 19·2-28·2) in the early surgery group versus 19·7 points (15·3-24·0) in the late surgery group (MD 4·0 points [1·7-6·3]; p=0·0006), light touch scores improved by 19·0 points (15·1-23·0) vs 14·8 points (11·2-18·4; MD 4·3 [1·6-7·0]; p=0·0021), and pin prick scores improved by 18·3 points (13·7-22·9) versus 14·2 points (9·8-18·6; MD 4·0 [1·5-6·6]; p=0·0020). Patients who had early decompression also had better AIS grades at 1 year after surgery, indicating less severe impairment, compared with patients who had late surgery (cOR 1·48 [95% CI 1·16-1·89]; p=0·0019). When time to surgical decompression was modelled as a continuous variable, there was a steep decline in change in total motor score with increasing time during the first 24-36 h after injury (p<0·0001); and after 36 h, change in total motor score plateaued.Interpretation: Surgical decompression within 24 h of acute SCI is associated with improved sensorimotor recovery. The first 24-36 h after injury appears to represent a crucial time window to achieve optimal neurological recovery with decompressive surgery following acute SCI.Funding: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pneumonia, wound infections, and sepsis (PWS) are the leading causes of acute mortality after traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). However, the impact of PWS on neurological and functional outcomes is largely unknown. The present study analyzed participants from the prospective North American Clinical Trials Network (NACTN) registry and the Surgical Timing in Acute SCI Study (STASCIS) for the association between PWS and functional outcome (assessed as Spinal Cord Independence Measure subscores for respiration and indoor ambulation) at 6 months post-injury. Neurological outcome was analyzed as a secondary end-point. Among 1299 participants studied, 180 (14%) developed PWS during the acute admission. Compared with those without PWS, participants with PWS were mostly male (76% vs. 86%; p = 0.007), or presented with mostly American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) grade A injury (36% vs. 61%; p < 0.001). There were no statistical differences between participants with or without PWS with respect to time from injury to surgery, and administration of steroids. Dominance analysis showed injury level, baseline AIS grade, and subject pre-morbid medical status collectively accounted for 77.7% of the predicted variance of PWS. Regression analysis indicated subjects with PWS demonstrated higher odds for respiratory (odds ratio [OR] 3.91, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.42-10.79) and ambulatory (OR 3.94, 95% CI: 1.50-10.38) support at 6 month follow-up in adjusted analysis. This study has shown an association between PWS occurring during acute admission and poorer functional outcomes following SCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: International validation study.Objective: To investigate the influence of the spine surgeons' level of experience on the intraobserver reliability of the novel AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification system, and the appropriate classification according to this system.Summary Of Background Data: Wide variability has been demonstrated for intraobserver reliability of the AOSpine classification system. The spine surgeons' level of experience may play a crucial role in the appropriate classification of thoracolumbar fractures, and the degree of reproducibility of the same observer on separate occasions. However, this has not been previously investigated.Methods: After a training on the classification system, high quality CT images together with clinical data from 25 patients with thoracolumbar fractures were independently assessed by 100 spine surgeons from across the world on 2 different occasions, 1 month apart from each other. The spine surgeons were allocated to a subgroup, according to their years of experience. Intraobserver reliability was calculated for each individual surgeon and for each subgroup, using the Kappa statistics (κ). Descriptive statistics was used to describe any differences between the subgroups. Analysis of any misclassifications was performed by calculating sensitivity and specificity estimates.Results: Almost all surgeons demonstrated at least moderate intraobserver reliability. All surgeon subgroups demonstrated substantial reliability (κ = 0.67-0.69) for fracture subtype grading, and almost all subgroups demonstrated excellent reliability (κ = 0.79-0.83) for fracture morphology type regardless of subtype identified. In general, the fractures were most frequently misclassified by the most experienced surgeons. No major differences were observed among the subgroups when comparing the sensitivity and specificity rates.Conclusion: This international study demonstrated that the spine surgeons' level of experience does not substantially influence the classification and intraobserver reliability of the recently described AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System.Level Of Evidence: 4. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a medical research on the surgical approach to subaxial cervical spine injuries with an evidence-based algorithm based on the Subaxial Injury Classification (SLIC) system. The study design, objective, background data, methods and results are presented. It is stated that the algorithm will assist surgeons in dealing with the operation and surgical approach to be used in managing subaxial cervical spine trauma.

A response by Marcel F. Dvorak, Charles G. Fisher and Michael G. Fehlings to a letter to the editor about their article on subaxial cervical spine injuries in the previous issue is presented.