The impact of spine stability on cervical spinal cord injury with respect to demographics, management, and outcome: a prospective cohort from a national spinal cord injury registry

Management of Cervical Spinal Cord Injury without Major Bone Injury in Adults

The incidence of cervical spinal cord injury (CSCI) without major bone injury is increasing, possibly because older people typically have pre-existing cervical spinal canal stenosis. The demographics, neurological injury, treatment, and prognosis of this type of CSCI differ from those of CSCI with bone or central cord injury. Spine surgeons worldwide are debating on the optimal management of CSCI without major bone injury. Therefore, this narrative review aimed to address unresolved clinical questions related to CSCI without major bone injury and discuss treatment strategies based on current findings. The greatest divide among spine surgeons worldwide hinges on whether surgery is necessary for patients with CSCI without major bone injury. Certain studies have recommended early surgery within 24 h after injury; however, evidence regarding its superiority over conservative treatment remains limited. Delayed MRI may be beneficial; nevertheless, reliable factors and imaging findings that predict functional prognosis during the acute phase and ascertain the necessity of surgery should be identified to determine whether surgery/early surgery is better than conservative therapy/delayed surgery. Quality-of-life assessments, including neuropathic pain, spasticity, manual dexterity, and motor function, should be performed to examine the superiority of surgery/early surgery to conservative therapy/delayed surgery.

Importance of Prospective Registries and Clinical Research Networks in the Evolution of Spinal Cord Injury Care

Only 100 years ago, traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) was commonly lethal. Today, most people who sustain SCI survive with continual efforts to improve their quality of life and neurological outcomes. SCI epidemiology is changing as preventative interventions reduce injuries in younger individuals, and there is an increased incidence of incomplete injuries in aging populations. Early treatment has become more intensive with decompressive surgery and proactive interventions to improve spinal cord perfusion. Accurate data, including specialized outcome measures, are crucial to understanding the impact of epidemiological and treatment trends. Dedicated SCI clinical research and data networks and registries have been established in the United States, Canada, Europe, and several other countries. We review four registry networks: the North American Clinical Trials Network (NACTN) SCI Registry, the National Spinal Cord Injury Model Systems (SCIMS) Database, the Rick Hansen SCI Registry (RHSCIR), and the European Multi-Center Study about Spinal Cord Injury (EMSCI). We compare the registries' focuses, data platforms, advanced analytics use, and impacts. We also describe how registries' data can be combined with electronic health records (EHRs) or shared using federated analysis to protect registrants' identities. These registries have identified changes in epidemiology, recovery patterns, complication incidence, and the impact of practice changes such as early decompression. They've also revealed latent disease-modifying factors, helped develop clinical trial stratification models, and served as matched control groups in clinical trials. Advancing SCI clinical science for personalized medicine requires advanced analytical techniques, including machine learning, counterfactual analysis, and the creation of digital twins. Registries and other data sources help drive innovation in SCI clinical science.

Surgical Efficacy and Prognostic Factors for Acute Traumatic Central Cord Syndrome Without Fracture and Dislocation

This study was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of surgical treatment of acute traumatic central cord syndrome (ATCCS) without fracture and dislocation and explore surgical timing and factors influencing postoperative recovery of spinal cord function. We retrospectively collected the general and clinical data of 112 patients with ATCCS (American Spinal Injury Association impairment scale grade C or D) without fracture and dislocation who underwent surgical treatment in our hospital from January 2013 to August 2019. We used statistical methods to evaluate the safety of the operation and explore the timing of surgery and the factors influencing postoperative recovery of spinal cord function. The mean age of the 112 patients was 60.64±12.91 years. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association score and the American Spinal Injury Association motor score (AMS) of the 112 patients were significantly higher at final follow-up than at admission. No significant difference in recovery of spinal cord function was seen between the early operation group (≤4 days) and the late operation group (>4 days). Comparison of patients with a good prognosis vs a poor prognosis showed that age, intrahand muscle strength at admission, maximum spinal cord compression, maximum canal compromise, length of high-intensity signal in the spinal cord on sagittal T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, AMS, and American Spinal Injury Association injury grade D/C at admission had a significant effect on recovery of spinal cord function. Surgical treatment of ATCCS without fracture and dislocation is safe and effective. Age, admission AMS and American Spinal Injury Association impairment scale score, intrinsic hand muscle strength, maximum canal compromise, maximum spinal cord compression, and length of high-intensity signal in the spinal cord can be used to predict postoperative recovery of spinal cord function. [Orthopedics. 2022;45(6):325-332.].

Indicators of Quality of Care in Individuals With Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: A Scoping Review

STUDY DESIGN

Scoping review.

OBJECTIVES

To identify a practical and reproducible approach to organize Quality of Care Indicators (QoCI) in individuals with traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Date: May 2018), MEDLINE (1946 to May 2018), and EMBASE (1974 to May 2018). Two independent reviewers screened 6092 records and included 262 full texts, among which 60 studies were included for qualitative analysis. We included studies, with no language restriction, containing at least 1 quality of care indicator for individuals with traumatic spinal cord injury. Each potential indicator was evaluated in an online, focused group discussion to define its categorization (healthcare system structure, medical process, and individuals with Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury related outcomes), definition, survey options, and scale.

RESULTS

A total of 87 indicators were identified from 60 studies screened using our eligibility criteria. We defined each indicator. Out of 87 indicators, 37 appraised the healthcare system structure, 30 evaluated medical processes, and 20 included individuals with TSCI related outcomes. The healthcare system structure included the impact of the cost of hospitalization and rehabilitation, as well as staff and patient perception of treatment. The medical processes included targeting physical activities for improvement of health-related outcomes and complications. Changes in motor score, functional independence, and readmission rates were reported as individuals with TSCI-related outcomes indicators.

CONCLUSION

Indicators of quality of care in the management of individuals with TSCI are important for health policy strategists to standardize healthcare assessment, for clinicians to improve care, and for data collection efforts including registries.

Early Predictors of Neurological Outcomes After Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Proposal of a Conceptual Framework

BACKGROUND

Neurological outcomes after traumatic spinal cord injury are variable and depend on patient-, trauma-, and treatment-related factors as well as on spinal cord injury characteristics, imaging, and biomarkers.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of the study were to identify and classify the early predictors of neurological outcomes after traumatic spinal cord injury.

DATA SOURCES

The Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Database were searched using medical subject headings. The search was extended to the reference lists of identified studies.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

The study eligibility criteria were assessment of neurological outcomes as primary or secondary outcome, predictors collected during the acute phase after traumatic spinal cord injury, and multivariate design.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were adult patients with traumatic spinal cord injury followed at least 3 mos after injury.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

The quality of studies was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Study Quality Assessment Tools for Observational Cohort and Cross-sectional Studies. The studies' narrative synthesis relied on a classification of the predictors according to quantity, quality, and consistency of the evidence. Results were summarized in a conceptual framework.

RESULTS

Forty-nine articles were included. The initial severity of traumatic spinal cord injury (American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale, motor score, and neurological level of injury) was the strongest predictor of neurological outcomes: patients with more severe injury at admission presented poor neurological outcomes. Intramedullary magnetic resonance imaging signal abnormalities were also associated with neurological outcomes, as the presence of intramedullary hemorrhage was a factor of poor prognosis. Other largely studied predictors, such as age and surgical timing, showed some inconsistency in results depending on cutoffs. Younger age and early surgery were generally associated with good outcomes. Although widely studied, other factors, such as vertebral and associated injuries, failed to show association with outcomes. Cerebrospinal fluid inflammatory biomarkers, as emerging factors, were significantly associated with outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a comprehensive review of predictors of neurological outcomes after traumatic spinal cord injury. It also highlights the heterogeneity of outcomes used by studies to assess neurological recovery. The proposed conceptual framework classifies predictors and illustrates their relationships with outcomes.

Decision tree analysis to better control treatment effects in spinal cord injury clinical research

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to use decision tree modeling to identify optimal stratification groups considering both the neurological impairment and spinal column injury and to investigate the change in motor score as an example of a practical application. Inherent heterogeneity in spinal cord injury (SCI) introduces variation in natural recovery, compromising the ability to identify true treatment effects in clinical research. Optimized stratification factors to create homogeneous groups of participants would improve accurate identification of true treatment effects.

METHODS

The analysis cohort consisted of patients with acute traumatic SCI registered in the Vancouver Rick Hansen Spinal Cord Injury Registry (RHSCIR) between 2004 and 2014. Severity of neurological injury (American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale [AIS grades A-D]), level of injury (cervical, thoracic), and total motor score (TMS) were assessed using the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury examination; morphological injury to the spinal column assessed using the AOSpine classification (AOSC types A-C, C most severe) and age were also included. Decision trees were used to determine the most homogeneous groupings of participants based on TMS at admission and discharge from in-hospital care.

RESULTS

The analysis cohort included 806 participants; 79.3% were male, and the mean age was 46.7 ± 19.9 years. Distribution of severity of neurological injury at admission was AIS grade A in 40.0% of patients, grade B in 11.3%, grade C in 18.9%, and grade D in 29.9%. The level of injury was cervical in 68.7% of patients and thoracolumbar in 31.3%. An AOSC type A injury was found in 33.1% of patients, type B in 25.6%, and type C in 37.8%. Decision tree analysis identified 6 optimal stratification groups for assessing TMS: 1) AOSC type A or B, cervical injury, and age ≤ 32 years; 2) AOSC type A or B, cervical injury, and age > 32-53 years; 3) AOSC type A or B, cervical injury, and age > 53 years; 4) AOSC type A or B and thoracic injury; 5) AOSC type C and cervical injury; and 6) AOSC type C and thoracic injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Appropriate stratification factors are fundamental to accurately identify treatment effects. Inclusion of AOSC type improves stratification, and use of the 6 stratification groups could minimize confounding effects of variable neurological recovery so that effective treatments can be identified.

Unbiased Recursive Partitioning to Stratify Patients with Acute Traumatic Spinal Cord Injuries: External Validity in an Observational Cohort Study

Clinical trials of novel therapies for acute spinal cord injury (SCI) are challenging because variability in spontaneous neurologic recovery can make discerning actual treatment effects difficult. Unbiased Recursive Partitioning regression with Conditional Inference Trees (URP-CTREE) is a novel approach developed through analyses of a large European SCI database (European Multicenter Study about Spinal Cord Injury). URP-CTREE uses early neurologic impairment to predict achieved motor recovery, with potential to optimize clinical trial design by optimizing patient stratification and decreasing sample sizes. We performed external validation to determine how well a previously reported URP-CTREE model stratified patients into distinct homogeneous subgroups and predicted subsequent neurologic recovery in an independent cohort. We included patients with acute cervical SCI level C4-C6 from a prospective registry at a quaternary care center from 2004-2018 (n = 101) and applied the URP-CTREE model and evaluated Upper Extremity Motor Score (UEMS) recovery, considered correctly predicted when final UEMS scores were within a pre-specified threshold of 9 points from median; sensitivity analyses evaluated the effect of timing of baseline neurological examination. We included 101 patients, whose mean times from injury baseline and follow-up examinations were 6.1 days (standard deviation [SD] 17) and 235.0 days (SD 71), respectively. Median UEMS recovery was 7 points (interquartile range 2-12). One of the predictor variables was not statistically significant in our sample; one group did not fit progressively improving UEMS scores, and three of five groups had medians that were not significantly different from adjacent groups. Overall accuracy was 75%, but varied from 82% among participants whose examinations occurred at <12 h, to 64% at 12-24 h, and 58% at >24 h. A previous URP-CTREE model had limited ability to stratify an independent into homogeneous subgroups. Overall accuracy was promising, but may be sensitive to timing of baseline neurological examinations. Further evaluation of external validity in incomplete injuries, influence of timing of baseline examinations, and investigation of additional stratification strategies is warranted.