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.

Prophylactic vertebroplasty can decrease the fracture risk of adjacent vertebrae: an in vitro cadaveric study.

Adjacent level vertebral fractures are common in patients with osteoporotic wedge fractures, but can theoretically be prevented with prophylactic vertebroplasty. Previous tests on prophylactic vertebroplasties have been performed under axial loading, while in vivo changes in spinal alignment likely cause off-axis loads. In this study we determined whether prophylactic vertebroplasty can also reduce the fracture risk under off-axis loads. In a previous study, we tested vertebral bodies that were loaded axially or 20° off-axis representing vertebrae in an unfractured spine or vertebrae adjacent to a wedge fracture, respectively. In the current study, vertebral failure load and stiffness of our previously tested vertebral bodies were compared to those of a new group of vertebral bodies that were filled with bone cement and then loaded 20° off-axis. These vertebral bodies represented adjacent-level vertebrae with prophylactic bone cement filling. Prophylactic augmentation resulted in failure loads that were comparable to those of the 0° group, and 32% greater than the failure loads of the 20° group. The stiffness of the prophylacticly augmented vertebrae was 21% lower than that of the 0° group, but 27% higher than that of the 20° group. We conclude that prophylactic augmentation can decrease the fracture risk in a malaligned, osteoporotic vertebra. Whether this is enough to actually prevent additional vertebral fractures in vivo remains subject of further study.