Comparing reactive versus empiric cerebrospinal fluid drainage strategies for spinal perfusion pressure optimization in patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injuries.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord hypoperfusion undermines clinical recovery in acute traumatic spinal cord injuries. New guidelines suggest cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage is an important strategy for preventing spinal cord hypoperfusion in the acute post-injury phase. METHODS: This study included participants presenting to a single level 1 trauma center between 2018 and 2022 with cervical or thoracic traumatic spinal cord injury severity grade A-C, as evaluated by the American spinal injury association impairment scale (AIS). The primary objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of two CSF drainage protocols in preventing spinal cord hypoperfusion; 1) draining CSF only when spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP) drops below 65 mmHg (i.e. reactive) versus 2) empiric CSF drainage of 5-10 mL every hour. Intrathecal pressure, spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and vasopressor utilization were compared using univariate T-test statistical analysis. RESULTS: While there was no difference in the incidence of sub-optimal SCPP (<65 mmHg; p = 0.1658), reactively drained participants were more likely to exhibit critical hypoperfusion (<50 mmHg; p = 0.0030) despite also having lower average intrathecal pressures (p < 0.001). There were no differences in average SCPP, mean arterial pressure (MAP), or vasopressor utilization between the two groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Empiric (vs reactive) CSF drainage resulted in fewer incidences of critical spinal cord hypoperfusion for patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injuries.

Preinjury Frailty Predicts 1-Year Mortality in Older Adults With Traumatic Spine Fractures.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nearly 30% of older adults presenting with isolated spine fractures will die within 1 year. Attempts to ameliorate this alarming statistic are hindered by our inability to identify relevant risk factors. The primary objective of this study was to develop a prediction model that identifies feasible targets to limit 1-year mortality. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 703 older adults (65 years or older) admitted to a level I trauma center with isolated spine fractures, without neural deficit, from January 2013 to January 2018. Multivariable analysis was used to select for independently significant patient demographics, frailty variables, injury metrics, and management decisions to incorporate into distinct logistic regression models predicting 1-year mortality. Variables were considered significant, if P < .05. RESULTS: Of the 703 older adults, 199 (28.3%) died after hospital discharge, but within 1 year of index trauma. Risk Analysis Index (RAI; odds ratio [OR]: 1.116; 95% CI: 1.087-1.149; P < .001) and ambulation requiring a cane (OR: 2.601; 95% CI: 1.151-5.799; P = .02) or walker (OR: 4.942; 95% CI: 2.698-9.196; P < .001), ie, frailty variables, were associated with increased odds of 1-year mortality. Spine trauma scales were not associated with 1-year mortality. Longer hospital stays (OR: 1.112; 95% CI: 1.034-1.196; P = .004) and nursing home discharge (OR: 3.881; 95% CI: 2.070-7.378; P < .001) were associated with increased odds, while discharge to rehab (OR: 0.361; 95% CI: 0.155-0.799; P = .014) decreased 1-year mortality odds. A "preinjury" regression model incorporating Risk Analysis Index and ambulation status resulted in an area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC) of 0.914 (95% CI: 0.863-0.965). A "postinjury" model incorporating Glasgow Coma Scale, hospital stay duration, and discharge disposition resulted in AUROCC of 0.746 (95% CI: 0.642-0.849). Combining elements of the preinjury and postinjury models into an "integrated model" produced an AUROCC of 0.908 (95% CI: 0.852-0.965). CONCLUSION: Preinjury frailty measures are most strongly associated with 1-year mortality outcomes in older adults with isolated spine fractures. Incorporating injury metrics or management decisions did not enhance predictive accuracy. Further work is needed to understand how targeting frailty may reduce mortality.

Differences in Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Participants in a National Spine Conference.

STUDY: Retrospective Study. OBJECTIVE: At the North American Spine Society (NASS) conference, participants may influence spine surgery practices and patient care through their contributions. Therefore, their financial conflicts of interest are of notable interest. This study aims to compare the demographics and payments made to participating surgeons. METHODS: A list of 151 spine surgeons was created based on those who participated in the 2022 NASS conference. Demographic information was obtained from public physician profiles. General payments, research payments, associated research funding, and ownership interest were collected for each physician. Descriptive statistics and two-tailed t-tests were used. RESULTS: In 2021, 151 spine surgeon participants received industry payments, totaling USD 48 294 115. The top 10% of orthopedic surgeons receiving payments accounted for 58.7% of total orthopedic general value, while the top 10% of neurosurgeons accounted for 70.1%. There was no significant difference between these groups' general payment amounts. Surgeons with 21-30 years of experience received the most general funding. There was no difference in funding between surgeons in academic or private settings. For all surgeons, royalties accounted for the largest percentage of the general value exchanged, while food/beverage accounted for the largest percentage of transactions. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that only years of experience had a positive association with general payments, and most monetary value belonged to a small handful of surgeons. These participants receiving significant money may promote techniques requiring products of companies providing their compensation. Future conferences may require disclosure policy changes so attendees understand the degree of funding participants receive.