Neurological recovery after traumatic spinal cord injury:what is meaningful? A patients' and physicians' perspective

Study design: Cross-sectional survey. Objectives: Most studies on neurological recovery after traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) assess treatment effects using the American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS grade) or motor points recovery. To what extent neurological recovery is considered clinically meaningful is unknown. This study investigated the perceived clinical benefit of various degrees of neurological recovery one year after C5 AIS-A tSCI. Setting: The Netherlands. Methods: By means of a web-based survey SCI patients and physicians evaluated the benefit of various scenarios of neurological recovery on a scale from 0 to 100% (0% no benefit to 100% major benefit). Recovery to AIS-C and D, was split into C/C+ and D/D+, which was defined by the lower and upper limit of recovery for each grade. Results: A total of 79 patients and 77 physicians participated in the survey. Each AIS grade improvement from AIS-A was considered significant benefit (all p < 0.05), ranging from 47.8% (SD 26.1) for AIS-B to 86.8% (SD 24.3) for AIS-D+. Motor level lowering was also considered significant benefit (p < 0.05), ranging from 66.1% (SD 22.3) for C6 to 81.7% (SD 26.0) for C8. Conclusions: Meaningful recovery can be achieved without improving in AIS grade, since the recovery of functional motor levels appears to be as important as improving in AIS grade by both patients and physicians. Moreover, minor neurological improvements within AIS-C and D are also considered clinically meaningful. Future studies should incorporate more detailed neurological outcomes to prevent potential underestimation of neurological recovery by only using the AIS grade

Predictors of Intraspinal Pressure and Optimal Cord Perfusion Pressure After Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: We recently developed techniques to monitor intraspinal pressure (ISP) and spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP) from the injury site to compute the optimum SCPP (SCPPopt) in patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI). We hypothesized that ISP and SCPPopt can be predicted using clinical factors instead of ISP monitoring. METHODS: Sixty-four TSCI patients, grades A-C (American spinal injuries association Impairment Scale, AIS), were analyzed. For 24 h after surgery, we monitored ISP and SCPP and computed SCPPopt (SCPP that optimizes pressure reactivity). We studied how well 28 factors correlate with mean ISP or SCPPopt including 7 patient-related, 3 injury-related, 6 management-related, and 12 preoperative MRI-related factors. RESULTS: All patients underwent surgery to restore normal spinal alignment within 72 h of injury. Fifty-one percentage had U-shaped sPRx versus SCPP curves, thus allowing SCPPopt to be computed. Thirteen percentage, all AIS grade A or B, had no U-shaped sPRx versus SCPP curves. Thirty-six percentage (22/64) had U-shaped sPRx versus SCPP curves, but the SCPP did not reach the minimum of the curve, and thus, an exact SCPPopt could not be calculated. In total 5/28 factors were associated with lower ISP: older age, excess alcohol consumption, nonconus medullaris injury, expansion duroplasty, and less intraoperative bleeding. In a multivariate logistic regression model, these 5 factors predicted ISP as normal or high with 73% accuracy. Only 2/28 factors correlated with lower SCPPopt: higher mean ISP and conus medullaris injury. In an ordinal multivariate logistic regression model, these 2 factors predicted SCPPopt as low, medium-low, medium-high, or high with only 42% accuracy. No MRI factors correlated with ISP or SCPPopt. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated ISP can be predicted by clinical factors. Modifiable factors that may lower ISP are: reducing surgical bleeding and performing expansion duroplasty. No factors accurately predict SCPPopt; thus, invasive monitoring remains the only way to estimate SCPPopt

Comparative Analysis of Cervical Spine Management in a Subset of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Cases Using Computer Simulation

BACKGROUND: No randomized control trial to date has studied the use of cervical spine management strategies in cases of severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) at risk for cervical spine instability solely due to damaged ligaments. A computer algorithm is used to decide between four cervical spine management strategies. A model assumption is that the emergency room evaluation shows no spinal deficit and a computerized tomogram of the cervical spine excludes the possibility of fracture of cervical vertebrae. The study's goal is to determine cervical spine management strategies that maximize brain injury functional survival while minimizing quadriplegia. METHODS/FINDINGS: The severity of TBI is categorized as unstable, high risk and stable based on intracranial hypertension, hypoxemia, hypotension, early ventilator associated pneumonia, admission Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and age. Complications resulting from cervical spine management are simulated using three decision trees. Each case starts with an amount of primary and secondary brain injury and ends as a functional survivor, severely brain injured, quadriplegic or dead. Cervical spine instability is studied with one-way and two-way sensitivity analyses providing rankings of cervical spine management strategies for probabilities of management complications based on QALYs. Early collar removal received more QALYs than the alternative strategies in most arrangements of these comparisons. A limitation of the model is the absence of testing against an independent data set. CONCLUSIONS: When clinical logic and components of cervical spine management are systematically altered, changes that improve health outcomes are identified. In the absence of controlled clinical studies, the results of this comparative computer assessment show that early collar removal is preferred over a wide range of realistic inputs for this subset of traumatic brain injury. Future research is needed on identifying factors in projecting awakening from coma and the role of delirium in these cases

CD4saurus Rex &HIVelociraptor vs. development of clinically useful immunological markers: a Jurassic tale of frozen evolution

One of the most neglected areas of everyday clinical practice for HIV physicians is unexpectedly represented by CD4 T cell counts when used as an aid to clinical decisions. All who care for HIV patients believe that CD4+ T cell counts are a reliable method to evaluate a patient immune status. There is however a fatalistic acceptance that besides its general usefulness, CD4+ T cell counts have relevant clincal and immunological limits. Shortcomings of CD4 counts appear in certain clinical scenarios including identification of immunological nonresponders, subsequent development of cancer on antiretroviral teatment, failure on tretment simplification. Historical and recently described parameters might be better suited to advise management of patients at certain times during their disease history. Immunogenotypic parameters and innate immune parameters that define progression as well as immune parameters associated with immune recovery are available and have not been introduced into validation processes in larger trials. The scientific and clinical community needs an effort in stimulating clinical evolution of immunological tests beyond "CD4saurus Rex" introducing new parameters in the clinical arena after appropriate validatio

What should an ideal spinal injury classification system consist of? A methodological review and conceptual proposal for future classifications

Since Böhler published the first categorization of spinal injuries based on plain radiographic examinations in 1929, numerous classifications have been proposed. Despite all these efforts, however, only a few have been tested for reliability and validity. This methodological, conceptual review summarizes that a spinal injury classification system should be clinically relevant, reliable and accurate. The clinical relevance of a classification is directly related to its content validity. The ideal content of a spinal injury classification should only include injury characteristics of the vertebral column, is primarily based on the increasingly routinely performed CT imaging, and is clearly distinctive from severity scales and treatment algorithms. Clearly defined observation and conversion criteria are crucial determinants of classification systems’ reliability and accuracy. Ideally, two principle spinal injury characteristics should be easy to discern on diagnostic images: the specific location and morphology of the injured spinal structure. Given the current evidence and diagnostic imaging technology, descriptions of the mechanisms of injury and ligamentous injury should not be included in a spinal injury classification. The presence of concomitant neurologic deficits can be integrated in a spinal injury severity scale, which in turn can be considered in a spinal injury treatment algorithm. Ideally, a validation pathway of a spinal injury classification system should be completed prior to its clinical and scientific implementation. This review provides a methodological concept which might be considered prior to the synthesis of new or modified spinal injury classifications

Defining Priorities for Future Research:Results of the UK Kidney Transplant Priority Setting Partnership

It has been suggested that the research priorities of those funding and performing research in transplantation may differ from those of end service users such as patients, carers and healthcare professionals involved in day-to-day care. The Kidney Transplant Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) was established with the aim of involving all stakeholders in prioritising future research in the field.The PSP methodology is as outlined by the James Lind Alliance. An initial survey collected unanswered research questions from patients, carers and clinicians. Duplicate and out-of-scope topics were excluded and the existing literature searched to identify topics answered by current evidence. An interim prioritisation survey asked patients and professionals to score the importance of the remaining questions to create a ranked long-list. These were considered at a final consensus workshop using a modified nominal group technique to agree a final top ten.The initial survey identified 497 questions from 183 respondents, covering all aspects of transplantation from assessment through to long-term follow-up. These were grouped into 90 unanswered "indicative" questions. The interim prioritisation survey received 256 responses (34.8% patients/carers, 10.9% donors and 54.3% professionals), resulting in a ranked list of 25 questions that were considered during the final workshop. Participants agreed a top ten priorities for future research that included optimisation of immunosuppression (improved monitoring, choice of regimen, personalisation), prevention of sensitisation and transplanting the sensitised patient, management of antibody-mediated rejection, long-term risks to live donors, methods of organ preservation, induction of tolerance and bioengineering of organs. There was evidence that patient and carer involvement had a significant impact on shaping the final priorities.The final list of priorities relates to all stages of the transplant process, including access to transplantation, living donation, organ preservation, post-transplant care and management of the failing transplant. This list of priorities will provide an invaluable resource for researchers and funders to direct future activity