An Update of a Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Spinal Cord Injury: Recommendations on the Role and Timing of Decompressive Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Clinical practice guideline development. OBJECTIVES: Acute spinal cord injury (SCI) can result in devastating motor, sensory, and autonomic impairment; loss of independence; and reduced quality of life. Preclinical evidence suggests that early decompression of the spinal cord may help to limit secondary injury, reduce damage to the neural tissue, and improve functional outcomes. Emerging evidence indicates that "early" surgical decompression completed within 24 hours of injury also improves neurological recovery in patients with acute SCI. The objective of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to update the 2017 recommendations on the timing of surgical decompression and to evaluate the evidence with respect to ultra-early surgery (in particular, but not limited to, <12 hours after acute SCI). METHODS: A multidisciplinary, international, guideline development group (GDG) was formed that consisted of spine surgeons, neurologists, critical care specialists, emergency medicine doctors, physical medicine and rehabilitation professionals, as well as individuals living with SCI. A systematic review was conducted based on accepted methodological standards to evaluate the impact of early (within 24 hours of acute SCI) or ultra-early (in particular, but not limited to, within 12 hours of acute SCI) surgery on neurological recovery, functional outcomes, administrative outcomes, safety, and cost-effectiveness. The GRADE approach was used to rate the overall strength of evidence across studies for each primary outcome. Using the "evidence-to-recommendation" framework, recommendations were then developed that considered the balance of benefits and harms, financial impact, patient values, acceptability, and feasibility. The guideline was internally appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. RESULTS: The GDG recommended that early surgery (≤24 hours after injury) be offered as the preferred option for adult patients with acute SCI regardless of level. This recommendation was based on moderate evidence suggesting that patients were 2 times more likely to recover by ≥ 2 ASIA Impairment Score (AIS) grades at 6 months (RR: 2.76, 95% CI 1.60 to 4.98) and 12 months (RR: 1.95, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.18) if they were decompressed within 24 hours compared to after 24 hours. Furthermore, patients undergoing early surgery improved by an additional 4.50 (95% 1.70 to 7.29) points on the ASIA Motor Score compared to patients undergoing surgery after 24 hours post-injury. The GDG also agreed that a recommendation for ultra-early surgery could not be made on the basis of the current evidence because of the small sample sizes, variable definitions of what constituted ultra-early in the literature, and the inconsistency of the evidence. CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended that patients with an acute SCI, regardless of level, undergo surgery within 24 hours after injury when medically feasible. Future research is required to determine the differential effectiveness of early surgery in different subpopulations and the impact of ultra-early surgery on neurological recovery. Moreover, further work is required to define what constitutes effective spinal cord decompression and to individualize care. It is also recognized that a concerted international effort will be required to translate these recommendations into policy.

A Clinical Practice Guideline for Prevention, Diagnosis and Management of Intraoperative Spinal Cord Injury: Recommendations for Use of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring and for the Use of Preoperative and Intraoperative Protocols for Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Development of a clinical practice guideline following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to develop guidelines that outline the utility of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) to detect intraoperative spinal cord injury (ISCI) among patients undergoing spine surgery, to define a subset of patients undergoing spine surgery at higher risk for ISCI and to develop protocols to prevent, diagnose, and manage ISCI. METHODS: All systematic reviews were performed according to PRISMA standards and registered on PROSPERO. A multidisciplinary, international Guidelines Development Group (GDG) reviewed and discussed the evidence using GRADE protocols. Consensus was defined by 80% agreement among GDG members. A systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) meta-analysis was performed to synthesize pooled evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of IONM to detect ISCI among patients undergoing spinal surgery. The IONM modalities evaluated included somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs), motor evoked potentials (MEPs), electromyography (EMG), and multimodal neuromonitoring. Utilizing this knowledge and their clinical experience, the multidisciplinary GDG created recommendations for the use of IONM to identify ISCI in patients undergoing spine surgery. The evidence related to existing care pathways to manage ISCI was summarized and based on this a novel AO Spine-PRAXIS care pathway was created. RESULTS: Our recommendations are as follows: (1) We recommend that intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring be employed for high risk patients undergoing spine surgery, and (2) We suggest that patients at "high risk" for ISCI during spine surgery be proactively identified, that after identification of such patients, multi-disciplinary team discussions be undertaken to manage patients, and that an intraoperative protocol including the use of IONM be implemented. A care pathway for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of ISCI has been developed by the GDG. CONCLUSION: We anticipate that these guidelines will promote the use of IONM to detect and manage ISCI, and promote the use of preoperative and intraoperative checklists by surgeons and other team members for high risk patients undergoing spine surgery. We welcome teams to implement and evaluate the care pathway created by our GDG.

Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management of Intraoperative Spinal Cord Injury in the Setting of Spine Surgery: A Proposed Care Pathway.

STUDY DESIGN: This study is a mixed methods approach. OBJECTIVES: Intraoperative spinal cord injury (ISCI) is a challenging complication in spine surgery. Intra-operative neuromonitoring (IONM) has been developed to detect changes in neural function. We report on the first multidisciplinary, international effort through AO Spine and the Praxis Spinal Cord Institute to develop a comprehensive guideline and care pathway for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of ISCI. METHODS: Three literature reviews were registered on PROSPERO (CRD 42022298841) and performed according to PRISMA guidelines: (1) Definitions, frequency, and risk factors for ISCI, (2) Meta-analysis of the accuracy of IONM for diagnosis of ISCI, (3) Reported management approaches for ISCI and related events. The results were presented in a consensus session to decide the definition of IONM and recommendation of its use in high-risk cases. Based on a literature review of management strategies for ISCI, an intra-operative checklist and overall care pathway was developed by the study team. RESULTS: An operational definition and high-risk patient categories for ISCI were established. The reported incidence of deficits was documented to be higher in intramedullary tumour spine surgery. Multimodality IONM has a high sensitivity and specificity. A guideline recommendation of IONM to be employed for high-risk spine cases was made. The different sections of the intraoperative checklist include surgery, anaesthetic and neurophysiology. The care pathway includes steps (1) initial clinical assessment, (2) pre-operative planning, (3) surgical/anaesthetic planning, (4) intra-operative management, and (5) post-operative management. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first evidence based comprehensive guideline and care pathway for ISCI using the GRADE methodology. This will facilitate a reduction in the incidence of ISCI and improved outcomes from this complication. We welcome the wide implementation and validation of these guidelines and care pathways in prospective, multicentre studies.

A Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Spinal Cord Injury: Recommendations on Hemodynamic Management.

STUDY DESIGN: Clinical practice guideline development following the GRADE process. OBJECTIVES: Hemodynamic management is one of the only available treatment options that likely improves neurologic outcomes in patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). Augmenting mean arterial pressure (MAP) aims to improve blood perfusion and oxygen delivery to the injured spinal cord in order to minimize secondary ischemic damage to neural tissue. The objective of this guideline was to update the 2013 AANS/CNS recommendations on the hemodynamic management of patients with acute traumatic SCI, acknowledging that much has been published in this area since its publication. Specifically, we sought to make recommendations on 1. The range of mean arterial pressure (MAP) to be maintained by identifying an upper and lower MAP limit; 2. The duration of such MAP augmentation; and 3. The choice of vasopressor. Additionally, we sought to make a recommendation on spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP) targets. METHODS: A multidisciplinary guideline development group (GDG) was formed that included health care professionals from a wide range of clinical specialities, patient advocates, and individuals living with SCI. The GDG reviewed the 2013 AANS/CNS guidelines and voted on whether each recommendation should be endorsed or updated. A systematic review of the literature, following PRISMA standards and registered in PROSPERO, was conducted to inform the guideline development process and address the following key questions: (i) what are the effects of goal-directed interventions to optimize spinal cord perfusion on extent of neurological recovery and rates of adverse events at any time point of follow-up? and (ii) what are the effects of particular monitoring techniques, perfusion ranges, pharmacological agents, and durations of treatment on extent of neurological recovery and rates of adverse events at any time point of follow-up? The GDG combined the information from this systematic review with their clinical expertise in order to develop recommendations on a MAP target range (specifically an upper and lower limit to target), the optimal duration for MAP augmentation, and the use of vasopressors or inotropes. Using methods outlined by the GRADE working group, recommendations were formulated that considered the balance of benefits and harms, financial impact, acceptability, feasibility and patient preferences. RESULTS: The GDG suggested that MAP should be augmented to at least 75-80 mmHg as the "lower limit," but not actively augmented beyond an "upper limit" of 90-95 mmHg in order to optimize spinal cord perfusion in acute traumatic SCI. The quality of the evidence around the "target MAP" was very low, and thus the strength of this recommendation is weak. For duration of hemodynamic management, the GDG "suggested" that MAP be augmented for a duration of 3-7 days. Again, the quality of the evidence around the duration of MAP support was very low, and thus the strength of this recommendation is also weak. The GDG felt that a recommendation on the choice of vasopressor or the use of SCPP targets was not warranted, given the dearth of available evidence. CONCLUSION: We provide new recommendations for blood pressure management after acute SCI that acknowledge the limitations of the current evidence on the relationship between MAP and neurologic recovery. It was felt that the low quality of existing evidence and uncertainty around the relationship between MAP and neurologic recovery justified a greater range of MAP to target, and for a broader range of days post-injury than recommended in previous guidelines. While important knowledge gaps still remain regarding hemodynamic management, these recommendations represent current perspectives on the role of MAP augmentation for acute SCI.

SAGES/AHPBA guidelines for the use of microwave and radiofrequency liver ablation for the surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma or colorectal liver metastases less than 5 cm.

BACKGROUND: Primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) represent the liver's two most common malignant neoplasms. Liver-directed therapies such as ablation have become part of multidisciplinary therapies despite a paucity of data. Therefore, an expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for HCC or CRLM less than 5 cm in diameter in patients ineligible for other therapies. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted for six key questions (KQ) regarding MWA or RFA for solitary liver tumors in patients deemed poor candidates for first-line therapy. Subject experts used the GRADE methodology to formulate evidence-based recommendations and future research recommendations. RESULTS: The panel addressed six KQs pertaining to MWA vs. RFA outcomes and laparoscopic vs. percutaneous MWA. The available evidence was poor quality and individual studies included both HCC and CRLM. Therefore, the six KQs were condensed into two, recognizing that these were two disparate tumor groups and this grouping was somewhat arbitrary. With this significant limitation, the panel suggested that in appropriately selected patients, either MWA or RFA can be safe and feasible. However, this recommendation must be implemented cautiously when simultaneously considering patients with two disparate tumor biologies. The limited data suggested that laparoscopic MWA of anatomically more difficult tumors has a compensatory higher morbidity profile compared to percutaneous MWA, while achieving similar overall 1-year survival. Thus, either approach can be appropriate depending on patient-specific factors (very low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSION: Given the weak evidence, these guidelines provide modest guidance regarding liver ablative therapies for HCC and CRLM. Liver ablation is just one component of a multimodal approach and its use is currently limited to a highly selected population. The quality of the existing data is very low and therefore limits the strength of the guidelines.

Spinal Cord Injury Community Personal Opinions and Perspectives on Spinal Cord Stimulation.

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) clinical trials are evaluating its efficacy and safety for motor, sensory, and autonomic recovery following spinal cord injury (SCI). The perspectives of people living with SCI are not well known and can inform the planning, delivery, and translation of SCS. Objectives: To obtain input from people living with SCI on the top priorities for recovery, expected meaningful benefits, risk tolerance, clinical trial design, and overall interest in SCS. Methods: Data were collected anonymously from an online survey between February and May 2020. Results: A total of 223 respondents living with SCI completed the survey. The majority of respondents identified their gender as male (64%), were 10+ years post SCI (63%), and had a mean age of 50.8 years. Most individuals had a traumatic SCI (81%), and 45% classified themselves as having tetraplegia. Priorities for improved outcome for those with complete or incomplete tetraplegia included fine motor skills and upper body function, whereas priorities for complete or incomplete paraplegia included standing and walking, and bowel function. The meaningful benefits that are important to achieve are bowel and bladder care, less reliance on caregivers, and maintaining physical health. Perceived potential risks include further loss of function, neuropathic pain, and complications. Barriers to participation in clinical trials include inability to relocate, out-of-pocket expenses, and awareness of therapy. Respondents were more interested in transcutaneous SCS than epidural SCS (80% and 61%, respectively). Conclusion: SCS clinical trial design, participant recruitment, and translation of the technology can be improved by better reflecting the priorities and preferences of those living with SCI identified from this study.

Patient perspectives and self-rated knowledge of nerve transfer surgery for restoring upper limb function in spinal cord injury.

BACKGROUND: Nerve transfer surgery has the potential to restore upper limb function in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI); however, there has been limited exploration of patient perception of nerve transfer. OBJECTIVE: To explore the perspectives of patients with chronic SCI (>2 years from injury) on nerve transfer surgery, and to determine if an educational intervention improved participants' perceived knowledge levels about the procedure. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study including qualitative semi-structured interviews and self-reported rating scales. Pre- and post-interviews were completed following an educational presentation. SETTING: Two local SCI clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Ten patients with chronic traumatic SCI and neurological level of injury C3-C7 (motor complete or incomplete), recruited via snowball sampling (six male, four female). INTERVENTION: An educational slide presentation on nerve transfer concepts. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary study outcome measure is the participants' responses to interview questions. The secondary study outcome measure is their self-reported knowledge levels of nerve transfer before and after education. RESULTS: Regaining upper limb function was a priority for all participants. Although most participants had heard of nerve transfer, none were offered it at the time of their SCI, and only two stated that they had any peers who had undergone the procedure. The educational module significantly increased self-rated scores on understanding of nerve transfer (p < .05). Although all participants were open to nerve transfer after the educational module, they described weighing different factors, including (1) potential for loss versus gain of function, (2) inadequate knowledge about nerve transfer, (3) recovery time, and (4) determining their eligibility for the surgery. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that people with SCI have limited understanding of nerve transfer as a potential option and would benefit from educational opportunities to help them make informed decisions. This study may inform the development of patient resources to improve pre-surgical consultation and informed decision-making.