Bizhan Aarabi

Early versus Delayed Decompression for Traumatic Cervical Spinal Cord Injury: Results of the Surgical Timing in Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study (STASCIS)

Background There is convincing preclinical evidence that early decompression in the setting of spinal cord injury (SCI) improves neurologic outcomes. However, the effect of early surgical decompression in patients with acute SCI remains uncertain. Our objective was to evaluate the relative effectiveness of early (<24 hours after injury) versus late (≥24 hours after injury) decompressive surgery after traumatic cervical SCI. Methods We performed a multicenter, international, prospective cohort study (Surgical Timing in Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study: STASCIS) in adults aged 16–80 with cervical SCI. Enrolment occurred between 2002 and 2009 at 6 North American centers. The primary outcome was ordinal change in ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS) grade at 6 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes included assessments of complications rates and mortality. Findings A total of 313 patients with acute cervical SCI were enrolled. Of these, 182 underwent early surgery, at a mean of 14.2(±5.4) hours, with the remaining 131 having late surgery, at a mean of 48.3(±29.3) hours. Of the 222 patients with follow-up available at 6 months post injury, 19.8% of patients undergoing early surgery showed a ≥2 grade improvement in AIS compared to 8.8% in the late decompression group (OR = 2.57, 95% CI:1.11,5.97). In the multivariate analysis, adjusted for preoperative neurological status and steroid administration, the odds of at least a 2 grade AIS improvement were 2.8 times higher amongst those who underwent early surgery as compared to those who underwent late surgery (OR = 2.83, 95% CI:1.10,7.28). During the 30 day post injury period, there was 1 mortality in both of the surgical groups. Complications occurred in 24.2% of early surgery patients and 30.5% of late surgery patients (p = 0.21). Conclusion Decompression prior to 24 hours after SCI can be performed safely and is associated with improved neurologic outcome, defined as at least a 2 grade AIS improvement at 6 months follow-up.

The subaxial cervical spine injury classification system: a novel approach to recognize the importance of morphology, neurology, and integrity of the disco-ligamentous complex.

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 weekslater, 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.

AOSpine thoracolumbar spine injury classification system: fracture description, neurological status, and key modifiers.

Study Design. Reliability and agreement study, retrospective case series. Objective. To develop a widely accepted, comprehensive yet simple classification system with clinically acceptable intra- and interobserver reliability for use in both clinical practice and research. Summary of Background Data. Although the Magerl classification and thoracolumbar injury classification system (TLICS) are both well-known schemes to describe thoracolumbar (TL) fractures, no TL injury classification system has achieved universal international adoption. This lack of consensus limits communication between clinicians and researchers complicating the study of these injuries and the development of treatment algorithms. Methods. A simple and reproducible classification system of TL injuries was developed using a structured international consensus process. This classification system consists of a morphologic classification of the fracture, a grading system for the neurological status, and description of relevant patient-specific modifiers. Forty cases with a broad range of injuries were classified independently twice by group members 1 month apart and analyzed for classification reliability using the Kappa coefficient (&kgr;). Results. The morphologic classification is based on 3 main injury patterns: type A (compression), type B (tension band disruption), and type C (displacement/translation) injuries. Reliability in the identification of a morphologic injury type was substantial (&kgr;= 0.72). Conclusion. The AOSpine TL injury classification system is clinically relevant according to the consensus agreement of our international team of spine trauma experts. Final evaluation data showed reasonable reliability and accuracy, but further clinical validation of the proposed system requires prospective observational data collection documenting use of the classification system, therapeutic decision making, and clinical follow-up evaluation by a large number of surgeons from different countries. Level of Evidence: 4

Pharmacological Therapy for Acute Spinal Cord Injury

• Administration of methylprednisolone (MP) for the treatment of acute spinal cord injury (SCI) is not recommended. Clinicians considering MP therapy should bear in mind that the drug is not Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for this application. There is no Class I or Class II medical evidence supporting the clinical benefit of MP in the treatment of acute SCI. Scattered reports of Class III evidence claim inconsistent effects likely related to random chance or selection bias. However, Class I, II, and III evidence exists that high-dose steroids are associated with harmful side effects including death. • Administration of GM-1 ganglioside (Sygen) for the treatment of acute SCI is not recommended.

Hemorrhagic Progression of a Contusion after Traumatic Brain Injury: A Review

The magnitude of damage to cerebral tissues following head trauma is determined by the primary injury, caused by the kinetic energy delivered at the time of impact, plus numerous secondary injury responses that almost inevitably worsen the primary injury. When head trauma results in a cerebral contusion, the hemorrhagic lesion often progresses during the first several hours after impact, either expanding or developing new, non-contiguous hemorrhagic lesions, a phenomenon termed hemorrhagic progression of a contusion (HPC). Because a hemorrhagic contusion marks tissues with essentially total unrecoverable loss of function, and because blood is one of the most toxic substances to which the brain can be exposed, HPC is one of the most severe types of secondary injury encountered following traumatic brain injury (TBI). Historically, HPC has been attributed to continued bleeding of microvessels fractured at the time of primary injury. This concept has given rise to the notion that continued bleeding might be due to overt or latent coagulopathy, prompting attempts to normalize coagulation with agents such as recombinant factor VIIa. Recently, a novel mechanism was postulated to account for HPC that involves delayed, progressive microvascular failure initiated by the impact. Here we review the topic of HPC, we examine data relevant to the concept of a coagulopathy, and we detail emerging data elucidating the mechanism of progressive microvascular failure that predisposes to HPC after head trauma.

Guidelines for the management of acute cervical spine and spinal cord injuries: 2013 update.

In 2002, an author group selected and sponsored by the Joint Section on Spine and Peripheral Nerves of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons published the first evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with acute cervical spinal cord injuries (SCIs). In the spirit of keeping up with changes in information available in the medical literature that might provide more contemporary and more robust medical evidence, another author group was recruited to revise and update the guidelines. The review process has been completed and is published and can be once again found as a supplement to Neurosurgery. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the changes in the recommendations as a result of new evidence or broadened scope.

The surgical approach to subaxial cervical spine injuries: an evidence-based algorithm based on the SLIC classification system.

Study Design. Systematic review of literature and expert clinical opinions of the members of the Spine Trauma Study Group were combined to develop and refine this algorithm. Obejctive. To develop an evidence-based algorithm for surgical approaches to manage subaxial cervical injuries using a systematic review of the literature, expert opinion, and anticipated patient preferences. Summary of Background Data. There is lack of consensus in the management of subaxial cervical spine trauma, in part, because of the lack of a clinically relevant system for classifying these injuries. The newly developed Subaxial Injury Classification scoring system categorizes injury morphology into 3 broad groups, includes an assessment of the integrity of the discoligamentous soft tissue structures and the patients neurologic status, and thus guides surgical or nonsurgical treatment. The choice of a specific surgical technique and approach is currently not evidence based, and this gap in knowledge is one which the current article seeks to address. Methods. A literature review followed by a consensus of experts approach was used to develop the algorithm and to ensure face and content validity. Results. An algorithm is presented to guide the choice of surgical approach in cervical subaxial burst fractures, distraction injuries, and translation or rotation injuries. The burst or compression injuries and distraction injuries are more likely to be treated with a single anterior approach, whereas the more severe translation or rotation injuries may more commonly be approached posteriorly or with combined anterior and posterior surgery. Conclusion. This algorithm; derived from the Subaxial Injury Classification scoring system, will assist surgeons in answering the 2 most common questions they face when managing subaxial cervical spine trauma: “Should I operate?” and “Which surgical approach should I select?”

Current Practice in the Timing of Surgical Intervention in Spinal Cord Injury

Study Design. Systematic review of the literature and prospective survey study. Objective. To characterize expert opinion regarding the timing of surgery for decompression of the injured spinal cord and critically summarize the evidence for early surgical intervention for acute spinal cord injury (SCI). Summary of Background Data. The optimal timing of decompressive surgery for acute SCI is controversial, resulting in considerable variability in clinical practice. Moreover, the current opinion of spine surgeons regarding the optimal timing of surgery after SCI is unknown. Methods. We undertook a systematic review of the applied preclinical and clinical published data regarding the timing of decompression following SCI. A 20-question survey was sent to orthopedic and neurosurgical spine surgeons across the world. Response frequencies were compiled for respondent demographics and preference for timing of surgical decompression in 6 distinct clinical scenarios. &khgr;2 statistics were used to compare response frequencies based on specialty and fellowship training. Results. A total of 971 spine surgeons responded to the survey. In almost every clinical scenario, with the exception of central cord syndrome, the majority of respondents (≥80%) preferred to decompress the spinal cord within 24 hours. A complete cervical SCI would preferably be decompressed within 6 hours by 46.2% of respondents, but 72.9% would operate within 6 hours for an incomplete SCI in an otherwise identical clinical scenario. Conclusion. The majority of spine surgeons prefer to decompress the acutely injured spinal cord within 24 hours. The majority of spine surgeons prefer to decompress the cervical spine for patients with complete or incomplete cervical SCI within 24 hours. Early decompression (within 24 hours) should be considered as part of the therapeutic management of any patient with SCI, particularly those with cervical SCI. Very early decompression (within 12 hours) should be considered for a patient with an incomplete cervical SCI (with the possible exception of central cord syndrome).

Decompressive laparotomy to treat intractable intracranial hypertension after traumatic brain injury.

INTRODUCTION Increases in intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) can cause increases in intracranial pressure (ICP). Recently, we noticed that abdominal fascial release could be useful in treating intracranial hypertension (ICH) after traumatic brain injury (TBI). We added this as an option in our treatment of TBI. METHODS In our institution, ICH is treated with an algorithm using osmolar therapy, CSF drainage and barbiturates. Patients with refractory ICH have routine measurement of IAP. If elevated, consideration is given to decompressive laparotomy. We retrospectively reviewed all patients admitted from January 2000 through July 2003 who had abdominal decompression to treat refractory ICH. RESULTS From 1/00 to 7/03, 17 patients underwent decompressive laparotomy for intractable ICH. Thirteen male and 4 females all sustained blunt injury. All had failed maximal therapy including 14 who had had decompressive craniectomy. Mean ICP was 30 +/- 8.1 mmHg (range 20-40 mmHg) before decompression. No patients had evidence of abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS). Before decompression mean IAP was 27.5 (+/- 5.2) mmHg (range 21-35 mmHg). After abdominal decompression ICP dropped precipitously by at least 10 mmHg to a mean of 17.5 (+/- 3.2) mmHg (range 10-25 mmHg). In 6 patients the decrease in ICP was transient. All died. The remaining 11 had sustained decreases in ICP. All survived, made neurologic recovery and were discharged to a rehabilitation facility. CONCLUSION Decompressive laparotomy can be a useful adjunct in the treatment of ICH failing maximal therapy following TBI. More work will need to be done to precise the exact indications for this therapy.

The Acute Cardiopulmonary Management of Patients With Cervical Spinal Cord Injuries

M anagement of patients with an acute cervical spinal cord injury in an intensive care unit or similar monitored setting is recommended. • Use of cardiac, hemodynamic, and respiratory monitoring devices to detect cardiovascular dysfunction and respiratory insufficiency in patients following acute spinal cord injury is recommended. • Correction of hypotension in spinal cord injury (systolic blood pressure , 90 mm Hg) when possible and as soon as possible is recommended. • Maintenance of mean arterial blood pressure between 85 and 90 mm Hg for the first 7 days following an acute spinal cord injury is recommended.