Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

Relationship of Neural Axis Level of Injury to Motor Recovery and Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with a Thoracolumbar Spinal Injury

Kingwell, Stephen P. MD, FRCS(C); Noonan, Vanessa K. MSc; Fisher, Charles G. MD, MHSc, FRCS(C); Graeb, Douglas A. MD, FRCP(C); Keynan, Ory MD; Zhang, Hongbin MSc; Dvorak, Marcel F. MD, FRCS(C)

Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery - American Volume: 7 July 2010 - Volume 92 - Issue 7 - p 1591–1599
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.00512
Scientific Articles

Background: Outcomes following traumatic conus medullaris and cauda equina injuries are typically predicted on the basis of the vertebral level of injury. This may be misleading as it is based on the assumption that the conus medullaris terminates at L1 despite its variable location. Our primary objective was to determine whether the neural axis level of injury (the spinal cord, conus medullaris, or cauda equina) as determined with magnetic resonance imaging is better than the vertebral level of injury for prediction of motor improvement in patients with a neurological deficit secondary to a thoracolumbar spinal injury.

Methods: Patients diagnosed with a motor deficit secondary to a thoracolumbar spinal injury, and who met the inclusion criteria, were contacted. Each patient had a magnetic resonance imaging scan that was reviewed by a spine surgeon and a neuroradiologist to determine the termination of the conus medullaris and the neural axis level of injury. Patient demographic data were collected prospectively at the time of admission. Admission and follow-up neurological assessments were performed by formally trained dedicated spine physiotherapists.

Results: Fifty-one patients were evaluated at a median of 6.2 years (range, 2.7 to 12.3 years) postinjury. The final motor scores differed significantly according to whether the patient had a spinal cord injury (mean, 62.8 points; 95% confidence interval, 55.4 to 70.2), conus medullaris injury (mean, 78.6 points; 95% confidence interval, 70.3 to 86.9), or cauda equina injury (mean, 88.8 points; 95% confidence interval, 78.9 to 98.7) (p = 0.0007). A univariate analysis showed the improvement in the motor scores after the cauda equina injuries (mean, 17.1 points; 95% confidence interval, 8.3 to 25.9) to be significantly greater than that after the spinal cord injuries (mean, 7.7 points; 95% confidence interval, 3.1 to 12.3) (p = 0.03). A multivariate analysis showed that an absence of initial sacral sensation had a negative effect on motor recovery by a factor of 13.2 points (95% confidence interval, 4.2 to 22.1). When compared with classifying our patients on the basis of the neural axis level of injury, reclassifying them on the basis of the vertebral level of injury resulted in a misclassification rate of 33%.

Conclusions: The motor recovery of patients with a thoracolumbar spinal injury and a neurological deficit is affected by both the neural axis level of injury as well as the initial motor score. The results of this study can help the clinician to determine a prognosis for patients who sustain these common injuries provided that he or she evaluates the precise level of neural axis injury utilizing magnetic resonance imaging.

Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

1Division of Spine, Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, Room 6180, Blusson Spinal Cord Centre, 6th Floor, 818 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada. E-mail address for M.F. Dvorak: marcel.dvorak@vch.ca

2Department of Radiology, Vancouver General Hospital, 899 12th Avenue West, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada

3Department of Orthopaedics “B,” Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, 6 Weitzman Street, Tel Aviv 64239, Israel

A commentary by Laurence B. Kempton, MD, and Harry N. Herkowitz, MD, is available at www.jbjs.org/commentary and as supplemental material to the online version of this article.

Copyright 2010 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated
You currently do not have access to this article

To access this article: