Spinal cord injury (SCI) occurs with an average annual incidence of 11,000 cases in North America and is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. 51,68,98 The main causes of acute SCI include motor vehicle collisions, sports and recreational activities, work-related accidents, falls, and violence. 51,68 Despite modest clinical benefits with methylprednisolone (MPSS), the neurologic prognosis for a patient with a severe SCI remains grim. 24–26,50 Moreover, the financial and social costs associated with acute SCI are staggering. 60,96 Kraus et al 68 estimated, based on 1975 data, an “annual cost to the United States for support and treatment of all persons with a SCI of two billion dollars.” In 1992, Harvey et al 61 estimated that this figure had risen to $4 billion annually. Given this background, it is appropriate to consider the evidence regarding decompression of acute SCIs, particularly given the frequency of this intervention in North America. 99,104
The biology of acute SCI involves both primary and secondary injury mechanisms. 2–4,6,7,50,62,98,100,105,115,116 Most traumatic cord injuries occur as result of rapid cord compression because of a fracture–dislocation or burst fracture. 30,64,94 Acute spinal cord distraction, acceleration–deceleration with shearing, and transection from penetrating injuries are additional mechanisms of trauma. 44,68 As reviewed by the senior author and others, 8,34,48,50,98 there is strong evidence that the primary initial injury initiates a series of events that include the following: 1) ischemia, impaired autoregulation, neurogenic shock, hemorrhage, microcirculatory disruption, vasospasm, and thrombosis 6,50,98; 2) ionic derangements, including increased intracellular calcium and sodium, and increased extracellular potassium 2–4,50; 3) accumulation of neurotransmitters, including serotonin, catecholamines, 82 and extracellular glutamate, 3 which contribute to cellular injury 50; 4) arachidonic acid release, free radical and eicosanoid production, and lipid peroxidation 8,9,41,58,62; 5) endogenous opioids 50; 6) edema 109; 7) inflammation; 8) loss of adenosine triphosphate-dependent cellular processes 8; and 9) apoptosis. 50 The development of these secondary injury events, which lead to tissue destruction during the first few hours after injury, is of relevance to the surgical and nonsurgical treatment of SCI. The severity of the pathologic changes and the degree of recovery are directly related to the duration of acute compression as demonstrated by studies in animal models in which longer periods of cord compression were associated with poorer neurologic recovery.
A more detailed knowledge of the pathophysiology of acute SCI has led to clinically relevant neuroprotective approaches to attenuate the effects of the secondary injury. The NASCIS II study reported a modest beneficial effect of high-dose if given within 8 hours of injury in patients with complete and incomplete spinal cord injuries, 24,25 which emphasizes the importance of the timing of intervention. Moreover, the NASCIS III study provided suggestive evidence that treatment within 3 hours may be better than treatment initiated 3–8 hours after trauma. 26 These studies thus support the concept of targeting secondary SCI mechanisms in patients. It is unclear, however, whether the “time window” for MPSS can be applied to surgical decompression.
Although the National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Studies (NASCIS II and NASCIS III) 24–26 have shown modest improvements in recovery of patients with SCI with high-dose steroids, this therapy has had only a modest functional impact in these patients, and many practitioners are reluctant to use this drug given its potential toxicity. Accordingly, recent advances in the safety and efficacy of surgical decompression of the spinal cord offer considerable promise for repairing some of the neurologic injury caused by spinal trauma. 5,16,49,95,110 However, despite the widespread use of surgery in patients with acute SCI in North America, the role of this intervention in improving neurologic recovery remains controversial because of the lack of well-designed and executed randomized controlled trials. In this article we critically review the experimental and clinical evidence regarding the value of surgical decompression in acute, nonpenetrating SCI. Comparison with the results of conservative, nonoperative management of SCI is also made.
This work represents an updated and reformatted analysis of a previous study reported by our group. 51 In particular, the present article examines a number of recent studies 4,42,50,51,80,85,99,107 that were not included in our earlier report.
An internet-based (PUBMED), computer-assisted MEDLINE search was undertaken of the experimental and clinical literature from 1966 to 2001 dealing with the role of decompression in SCI using the medical subject headings (MeSH) of “decompression” and “spinal cord injury.” Articles with English, German, and French abstracts were selected for review. This computerized literature review yielded a total of 922 studies, which were then pared down to 97 articles based on relevance to the issue of SCI management. This analysis was supplemented by a detailed examination of the reference lists from selected articles and standard spine textbooks. As summarized in Table 1, evidence from clinical trials was defined as Class I (well-designed and conducted randomized controlled trials), Class II (prospective cohort studies or controlled studies with well-defined comparison groups), or Class III (case series, retrospective reviews, and expert opinion). 113
A total of 66 articles (17 experimental studies in animal models and 49 clinical studies) were selected for detailed analysis (Tables 2–6). Of the clinical articles, 9 dealt with nonoperativemanagement, 28 with the role of surgical intervention in the early (<4 weeks) postoperative period (Tables 3 and4), 11 with the effect of closed reduction (Table 5), and 8 with the role of delayed decompression (Table 6). Based on this analysis, suggested evidence-based recommendations regarding the role of acute decompression in SCI were generated (Table 7).
Experimental Studies of Decompression in Acute SCI in Animal Models
There is compelling evidence from laboratory studies in animal models that persistent compression of the spinal cord is a potentially reversible form of secondary injury. The severity of SCI in animal models is related to the force of compression, duration of compression, displacement, impulse, and kinetic energy. 44,54,63,83,86,91 Numerous experimental studies of decompression after SCI have been performed in various animal models. 6,19,28,32,37,40,42,44,54,66,67,81,90–93,100 These studies have a wide range of species, including models in primates, dogs, cats, and rodents, and have consistently shown that neurologic recovery is enhanced by early decompression (Table 2).
In a recent study, Dimar et al 42 used the New York University weight drop model to produce thoracic SCI in rats and an epidural spacer placed adjacent to the contusion to mimic the effect of persisting compression. The effect of decompression at 0, 2, 6, 24, and 72 hours after SCI was then assessed by quantitative analysis of locomotor recovery, lesion volume, and electrophysiology. Neurologic recovery was significantly dependent on time to decompression, with significant differences seen in all experimental groups. This study provides the strongest experimental evidence to date of a clear beneficial effect of spinal cord decompression after SCI.
Role of Conservative Management in Acute SCI
To place the potential role of surgery in the management of SCI in an appropriate context, it is important to briefly examine the outcomes of conservative, nonoperative treatment. Guttmann advocated the use of postural techniques combined with bed rest to achieve reduction and spontaneous fusion of the spine. 55,56 Operative intervention was rarely undertaken because of a higher incidence of neurologic complications and poorer clinical outcomes with laminectomy. 11–13,34,55,56 For example, Frankel et al, 52 who followed the management principles of Guttmann, 55,56 reported on a cohort of 612 patients with “closed spinal injuries” who were managed conservatively. 52 Only four of these patients developed spinal instability and required fusion by surgical techniques. However, details regarding the fractures and the criteria for determining spinal instability or failure of a nonoperative approach were not described. Of note, 29% of Frankel A patients (with complete motor and sensory paralysis below the level of the injury) improved at least one grade during the course of their hospital stay. These data thus provide a benchmark against which other interventions can be judged.
The spontaneous improvement in neurologic status with nonoperative management has been also reported by a number of other authors. 11–13,35,43,97,111,114 Some investigators have even claimed that neither spinal surgery nor anatomic realignment of the spinal column improved neurologic outcome in patients with acute SCI with the possible exception of bilateral locked facets. 39,59 However, to date, the studies of conservative treatment are limited to noncontrolled, retrospective analyses of clinical databases (Class III evidence). Moreover, surgeons now recognize that laminectomy without fusion is contraindicated in most cases of acute SCI because of inadequate decompression of the cord and exacerbation of underlying traumatic instability. 23,49
Although careful, nonoperative management is key to the care of patients with SCI, modern surgical techniques have advanced considerably over the past two decades. Moreover, there is increasing evidence that an exclusive policy of nonoperative treatment of SCI can lead to high complication rates. For example, neurologic deterioration can occur in up to 10% of patients with incomplete cervical SCI who undergo an exclusively nonoperative approach. 65
Role of Decompression in the Management of Acute SCI
Tables 3–6 summarize the clinical studies that have examined the role of decompression in the treatment of SCI. 14,15,17,21,38,45,46,69,71,73,74,76,77,79,84,88,89,104,108
The clinical uncertainty in the role and timing of surgical intervention in the setting of acute SCI is reflected by the wide variations in practice patterns seen across North America. This view is supported by a recent retrospective, multicenter study of SCI management in 585 cases undertaken by our group. 99 Although 65.4% of cases in North America were managed surgically in this cross-sectional study, there was no consensus as to timing of operative intervention: 23.5% of patients underwent surgery within 24 hours of SCI, whereas >40% of cases were managed by delayed surgery (>5 days).
Our literature review found nine prospective, controlled studies of surgical decompression in acute SCI 33,47,80,85,95,102,103,106,107 (Table 3). In a prospective, nonrandomized case–control study of 208 patients with acute spinal cord or cauda equina injury, Tator et al compared the results of surgery (56% of patients) with nonoperative management (44%). 95 Operative management was associated with a lower overall mortality rate (6.1%) than nonoperative treatment (15.2%) despite a higher rate of thromboembolic complications in the surgical group. Overall, there was no difference between operated and nonoperated patients in length of stay or neurologic recovery.
In an analysis of the NASCIS II database (Class II evidence), Duh et al 47 reported that patients undergoing acute surgery (<25 hours after injury) had improved (although not statistically significant) outcomes (mean neurologic change score of 17.8) when compared with a control cohort treated nonoperatively (mean change score of 13.2). Interestingly, results of surgery were similar in the early (<25 hours) and delayed (>200 hours) groups. In contrast, in a series of prospective studies Vale et al, 103 Vaccaro et al, 102 and Waters et al 106 could not document a beneficial effect of surgical decompression. It is noteworthy, however, that all patients underwent delayed operative management in the study by Waters et al. 106 Moreover, although the study by Vaccaro et al 102 was a prospective, randomized trial, 20 of the 62 patients were lost to follow-up and “early” surgery was defined as being within 72 hours after SCI. In view of the large number of patients lost to follow-up, we have considered the study by Vaccaro et al 102 to provide Class II evidence. More recently, Chen et al 33 evaluated 37 patients with cervical spondylosis and incomplete cord injury to assess surgical versus nonsurgical outcomes. They suggested that 13 of 16 patients treated surgically improved within 2 days of surgery and, overall, showed faster recovery of neurologic function, better long-term neurologic outcome, shorter hospital stays, and fewer complications than the nonoperative group. Because of the lack of randomization, this study was classified as Class II evidence.
A number of authors have advocated early operative intervention in patients with acute SCI. For example, Aebi et al, 1 Wiberg and Hauge, 109 Hadley et al, 57 and Wolf et al 112 recommended early reduction (4–10 hours) and operative fixation of spinal fractures associated with SCI. Some evidence is presented in these studies, which suggests that early decompression may enhance neurologic recovery in selected patients with SCI. However, these studies lack randomization or appropriate controls and thus represent Class III evidence only. Thus, the benefits of surgical intervention need to be weighed against the spontaneous recovery that may occur in nonoperatively managed patients with acute SCI. 52,65
The clinical benefits of early reduction of fracture–dislocations of the spine by closed techniques or open surgery are difficult to assess in the absence of Class I data (Tables 3–5). 1,29,36,53,78,80,88,89,108 Reports of significant neurologic improvement in some cervical cases decompressed early by traction are encouraging but do not provide convincing, clinical evidence to support standards or overall guidelines. 29 Moreover, a number of studies have not found any neurologic benefit to reduction 39,59,106 with the possible exception of patients with bilateral facet dislocation. 10 Of particular relevance to this patient population is the study by Burke and Berryman 31 in which 76 patients with unilateral or bilateral dislocations of the cervical spine were treated with closed reduction under general anesthesia. Fifty percent of the patients were admitted to their center within 8 hours. These authors concluded that early reduction improved the neurologic recovery of patients with incomplete SCI. Based on these data and a limited number of other Class II studies (Table 5), there are thus limited data to support a recommendation for urgent reduction of bilateral locked facets in a patient with incomplete tetraplegia.
Despite the potential appeal of aggressive, closed reduction of locked cervical facets, our multicenter, cross-sectional study in 585 cases documented an 8.1% rate of neurologic deterioration with attempts at closed reduction. 99 These data are sobering and emphasize the difficulty in interpreting accounts of the beneficial effects of rapid closed reduction by traction in the absence of Class I data.
Aebi et al 1 undertook a retrospective review of 100 patients with cervical spine injuries and attempted to find an association between neurologic recovery and the timing of fracture reduction by closed or open techniques. A manual or surgical reduction was performed within the first 6 hours after the accident in only 25% of the cases, and within the first 24 hours in 57%. Overall, 31% of the 100 patients recovered, and 75% of the recoveries were in patients reduced within the first 6 hours (Table 5).
Cotler et al examined the safety and efficacy of early reduction and undertook a prospective study of early reduction by traction in 24 patients (Class II evidence). 36 They found no neurologic deterioration in any of the patients, most of whom were successfully reduced by closed techniques within 24 hours of injury, although the exact interval in hours between injury and reduction was not given. Mirza et al 78 retrospectively reviewed 30 patients with cervical spine injuries who underwent surgical decompression and stabilization either before or after 72 hours. These authors suggested that the early group had improved neurologic recovery immediately after surgery, without an increase in associated morbidity.
In contrast to the aforementioned studies of early decompression, Larson et al 70 advocated operating a week or more after SCI to allow medical and neurologic stabilization of the injured patient (Table 6). This remains the practice in many institutions, particularly in light of early reports suggesting an increased rate of medical complications with early surgery (<5 days after SCI). 75 Interestingly, a number of authors (summarized in Table 6) have documented recovery of neurologic function after delayed decompression of the spinal cord (months to years) after the injury. 10,18,20,22,27,70,101 Although these studies are retrospective in design, the improvement in neurologic function with delayed decompression in patients with cervical or thoracolumbar SCI who have plateaued in their recovery is noteworthy and suggests that compression of the cord is an important contributing cause of neurologic dysfunction.
Effect of Surgery on Complications and the Length of Stay After SCI
The issue of whether surgery, especially early surgery, increases the rate of complications in patients with SCI has been one that has generated considerable controversy and debate. Many patients with SCI with high tetraplegia or significant associated systemic injuries are critically ill because of cardiorespiratory compromise. Early investigators such as Guttman 55,56 and Bedbrook and Sakae 12 and, more recently, Wilmot and Hall 111 and Marshall et al, 75 have argued against surgery, especially early intervention in these critically ill patients. However, modern techniques of critical care and neuroanesthesia 72,87,103 have allowed these patients to undergo surgery with minimal differences in complication rates between operative and nonoperative cases. 95,110 Indeed, an analysis of the NASCIS II database by Duh et al showed that those operated on in the first 24 hours had a lower rate of complications than those undergoing operative intervention at later timepoints. 47 In a study from our unit, the only difference in morbidity between the surgical and nonsurgical cases was a slight increase in the incidence of deep venous thrombosis in the operated group. 95 Furthermore, the length of stay in the two groups did not differ. 95 In the prospective, randomized trial of the timing of surgery by Vaccaro et al, 102 there was no significant difference in length of acute postoperative intensive care stay or length of inpatient rehabilitation between the early and late groups. This was reiterated by Mirza et al 78 and Chen et al. 33 Moreover, in a prospective study of 2204 cases, Waters et al 106,107 found that there was no difference in the complication rates of cases managed by nonoperative or surgical techniques. Accordingly, there is Class II evidence to support the safety of surgery, including operative treatment within the first 24 hours.
There is strong experimental evidence from animal models that decompression of the spinal cord improves recovery after SCI (Table 2). However, it is difficult to determine a time window for the effective application of decompression in the clinical setting from these animal models. Studies of secondary injury mechanisms including ischemia, free radical-mediated lipid peroxidation, and calcium-mediated cytotoxicity suggest that early intervention within hours after SCI is critical to attain a neuroprotective effect. Whether the same time window applies to surgical treatment is as yet unclear. To date, the clinical studies that have examined the role of surgical decompression in SCI are limited to Class II and III evidence, except for one study of the timing of decompression. Surgery remains a valid practice option, although there are no conclusive data showing a benefit over conservative management approaches. There is Class II evidence suggesting that either early (<25 hours) or delayed (>200 hours) surgical intervention is safe and equally effective. Clearly, to better define the role of surgery in the management of acute SCI, randomized, controlled prospective trials are required.
- There is a strong biologic rationale, based on experimental evidence in animal models, to support the concept that early decompression may improve outcome after acute SCI.
- There are Class III data to suggest a role for urgent decompression in the setting of 1) bilateral facet dislocation and 2) incomplete spinal cord injury with a neurologically deteriorating patient (option).
- There is Class II evidence that early (<24 hours) surgery does not increase the complication rate after acute SCI (guideline).
- Based on a comprehensive review of the available literature, decompressive surgery for SCI can overall only be recommended as a practice option (Class III evidence).
1. Aebi M, Mohler J, Zach GA, et al. Indication, surgical technique and results of 100 surgically-treated fractures and fracture-dislocations of the cervical spine. Clin Orthop 1986; 203: 244–57.
2. Agrawal SK, Fehlings MG. Mechanisms of secondary injury to spinal cord axons in vitro: role of Na+
)-ATPase, the Na(+
exchanger, and the Na(+)
exchanger. J Neurosci 1996; 16: 545–52.
3. Agrawal SK, Fehlings MG. The role of NMDA and non-NMDA ionotropic glutamate receptors in traumatic spinal cord axonal injury. J Neurosci 1997; 17: 1055–63.
4. Agrawal S, Nashmi R, Fehlings MG. Role of L and N type calcium channels in the pathophysiology of traumatic spinal cord white matter injury. Neuroscience 2000; 99: 179–88.
5. Ahn JH, Ragnarsson KT, Gordon WA, et al. Current trends in stabilizing high thoracic and thoracolumbar spinal fractures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1984; 65: 366–9.
6. Aki T, Toya S. Experimental study on changes of the spinal-evoked potential and circulatory dynamics following spinal cord compression and decompression. Spine 1984; 9: 800–9.
7. Allen AR. Surgery
for experimental lesions of spinal cord equivalent to crush injury of fracture dislocation of spinal column: a preliminary report. JAMA 1911; 57: 878–80.
8. Anderson DK, Hall ED. Pathophysiology of spinal cord trauma. Ann Emerg Med 1993; 22: 987–92.
9. Anderson DK, Means ED, Waters TR, et al. Spinal cord energy metabolism following compression trauma to the feline spinal cord. J Neurosurg 1980; 53: 375–80.
10. Anderson PA, Bohlman HH. Anterior decompression and arthrodesis of the cervical spine: long-term motor improvement: II. Improvement in complete traumatic quadriplegia. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992; 74: 683–92.
11. Bedbrook GM. Spinal injuries with tetraplegia and paraplegia. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1979; 61: 267–84.
12. Bedbrook GM, Sakae T. A review of cervical spine injuries with neurological dysfunction. Paraplegia 1980; 20: 321–33.
13. Bedbrook GM, Sedgley GI. The management of spinal injuries: past and present. Int Rehabil Med 1980; 2: 45–61.
14. Benzel EC, Larson SJ. Functional recovery after decompressive operation for thoracic and lumbar spine fractures. Neurosurgery 1986; 19: 772–8.
15. Benzel EC, Larson SJ. Recovery of nerve root function after complete quadriplegia from cervical spine fractures. Neurosurgery 1986; 19: 809–12.
16. Benzel EC, Larson SJ. Functional recovery after decompressive spine operation for cervical spine fractures. Neurosurgery 1987; 20: 742–6.
17. Bohlman HH. Acute fractures and dislocations of the cervical spine: an analysis of three hundred hospitalized patients and review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1979; 61: 1119–42.
18. Bohlman HH, Anderson PA. Anterior decompression and arthrodesis of the cervical spine: long-term motor improvement: 1. Improvement in incomplete traumatic quadriparesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992; 74: 671–82.
19. Bohlman HH, Bahniuk E, Raskulinecz G, et al. Mechanical factors affecting recovery from incomplete cervical spinal cord injury
: a preliminary report. Johns Hopkins Med J 1979; 145: 115–25.
20. Bohlman HH, Freehafer A. Late anterior decompression of spinal cord injuries. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1979; 57: 1025.
21. Bohlman HH, Freehafer A, Dejak J. The results of treatment of acute injuries of the upper thoracic spine with paralysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1985; 67: 360–9.
22. Bohlman HH, Kirkpatrick JS, Delamarter RB, et al. Anterior decompression for late pain and paralysis after fractures of the thoracolumbar spine. Clin Orthop 1994; 300: 24–9.
23. Botel U, Glaser E, Niedeggen A. The surgical treatment of acute spinal paralysed patients. Spinal Cord 1997; 35: 420–8.
24. Bracken MB, Holford TR. Effects of timing
of methylprednisolone or naloxone administration on recovery of segmental and long-tract neurological function in NASCIS 2. J Neurosurg 1993; 79: 500–7.
25. Bracken MB, Shepard MJ, Collins WF, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of methylprednisolone or naloxone in the treatment of acute spinal-cord injury: results of the Second National Acute Spinal Cord Injury
Study. N Engl J Med 1990; 322: 1405–11.
26. Bracken MB, Shepard MJ, Holford TR, et al. Administration of methylprednisolone for 24 or 48 hours or tirilazad mesylate for 48 hours in the treatment of acute spinal cord injury
: results of the Third National Acute Spinal Cord Injury
Randomized Controlled Trial. National Acute Spinal Cord Injury
Study. JAMA 1997; 277: 1597–604.
27. Brodkey JS, Miller CF Jr, Harmody RM. The syndrome of acute central cervical spinal cord injury
revisited. Surg Neurol 1980; 14: 251–7.
28. Brodkey JS, Richards DE, Blasingame JP, et al. Reversible spinal cord trauma in cats: additive effects of direct pressure and ischemia. J Neurosurg 1972; 37: 591–3.
29. Brunette DD, Rockswold GL. Neurologic recovery following rapid spinal realignment for complete cervical spinal cord injury
. J Trauma 1987; 27: 445–7.
30. Bunge RP, Puckett WR, Becerra JL, et al. Observations on the pathology of human spinal cord injury
: a review and classification of 22 new cases with details from a case of chronic cord compression with extensive focal demyelination. Adv Neurol 1993; 59: 75–89.
31. Burke DC, Berryman D. The place of closed manipulation in the management of flexion-rotation dislocations of the cervical spine. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1971; 53: 165–82.
32. Carlson GD, Minato Y, Okada A, et al. Early time-dependent decompression for spinal cord injury
: vascular mechanisms of recovery. J Neurotrauma 1997; 14: 951–62.
33. Chen TY, Dickman CA, Eleraky M, et al. The role of decompression for acute incomplete cervical spinal cord injury
in cervical spondylosis. Spine 1998; 23: 2398–403.
34. Collins WF. A review and update of experiment and clinical studies of spinal cord injury
. Paraplegia 1983; 21: 204–19.
35. Comarr AE, Kaufman AA. A survey of the neurological results of 858 spinal cord injuries: a comparison of patients treated with and without laminectomy. J Neurosurg 1956; 13: 95–106.
36. Cotler JM, Herbison GJ, Nasuti JF, et al. Closed reduction of traumatic cervical spine dislocation using traction weights up to 140 pounds. Spine 1993; 18: 386–90.
37. Croft TJ, Brodkey JS, Nulsen FE. Reversible spinal cord trauma: a model for electrical monitoring of spinal cord function. J Neurosurg 1972; 36: 402–6.
38. Dall DM. Injuries of the cervical spine: I. Does the type of bony injury affect spinal cord recovery? S Afr Med J 1972; 46: 1048–56.
39. Dall DM. Injuries of the cervical spine: II. Does anatomical reduction of the bony injuries improve the prognosis for spinal cord recovery? S Afr Med J 1972; 46: 1083–90.
40. Delamarter RB, Sherman J, Carr JB. Pathophysiology of spinal cord injury
: recovery after immediate and delayed decompression. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1995; 77: 1042–9.
41. Demopoulos HB, Flamm ES, Pietronigro DD, et al. The free radical pathology and the microcirculation in the major central nervous system disorders. Acta Physiol Scand Suppl 1980; 492: 91–119.
42. Dimar JR, Glassman SD, Raque GH, et al. The influence of spinal canal narrowing and timing
of decompression on neurologic recovery after spinal cord contusion in a rat model. Spine 1999; 24: 1623–33.
43. Ditunno JF, Sipski ML, Posaniak EA, et al. Wrist extensor recovery in traumatic quadriplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1987; 68: 287–90.
44. Dolan EJ, Tator CH, Endrenyi L. The value of decompression for acute experimental spinal cord compression injury. J Neurosurg 1980; 53: 749–55.
45. Donovan WH, Cifu DX, Schotte DE. Neurological and skeletal outcomes in 113 patients with closed injuries to the cervical spinal cord. Paraplegia 1992; 30: 533–42.
46. Donovan WH, Kopaniky D, Stolzmann E, et al. The neurological and skeletal outcome in patients with closed cervical spinal cord injury
. J Neurosurg 1987; 66: 690–4.
47. Duh MS, Shepard MJ, Wilberger JE, et al. The effectiveness of surgery
on the treatment of acute spinal cord injury
and its relation to pharmacological treatment. Neurosurgery 1994; 35: 240–8.
48. Eismont FJ, Clifford S, Goldberg M, et al. Cervical sagittal spinal canal size in spine injury. Spine 1982; 9: 663–6.
49. Fehlings MG, Cooper P, Errico T. Posterior plates in the management of cervical instability: long term results in 44 patients. J Neurosurg 1994; 81: 341–9.
50. Fehlings MG, Sekhon L. Cellular, ionic and biomolecular mechanisms of the injury process. In: Benzel E, Tator CH, eds. Contemporary Management of Spinal Cord Injury
: From Impact to Rehabilitation. Chicago, IL: AANS, 2000: 33–50.
51. Fehlings MG, Tator CH. An evidence-based review of surgical decompression for acute spinal cord injury
: rationale, indications, and timing
based on experimental and clinical studies. J Neurosurg (Spine) 1999; 91: 1–11.
52. Frankel H, Hancock D, Hyslop G, et al. The value of postural reduction in the initial management of closed injuries of the spine with paraplegia and tetraplegia: Part 1. Paraplegia 1969; 7: 179–82.
53. Gillingham J. Early management of spinal cord trauma. J Neurosurg 1976; 44: 766–7.
54. Guha A, Tator CH, Endrenyi L, et al. Decompression of the spinal cord improves recovery after acute experimental spinal cord compression injury. Paraplegia 1987; 25: 324–39.
55. Guttmann L. Initial treatment of traumatic paraplegia and tetraplegia. In: Harris P, ed. Spinal Injuries Symposium. Edinburgh: Morrison and Gibb, Royal College of Surgeons, 1963: 80–92.
56. Guttmann L. Spinal Cord Injuries: Comprehensive Management and Research 1976, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1976.
57. Hadley MN, Fitzpatrick BC, Sonntag VK, et al. Facet fracture-dislocation injuries of the cervical spine. Neurosurgery 1992; 30: 661–6.
58. Hall ED, Yonkers PA, Horan KL, et al. Correlation between attenuation of posttraumatic spinal cord ischemia and preservation of tissue vitamin E by the 21- aminosteroid U74006F: evidence for an in vivo antioxidant mechanism. J Neurotrauma 1989; 6: 169–76.
59. Harris P, Karmi MZ, McClemont E, et al. The prognosis of patients sustaining severe cervical spine injury (C2-C7 inclusive). Paraplegia 1980; 18: 324–30.
60. Harvey C, Rothschild BB, Asmann AJ, et al. New estimates of traumatic SCI prevalence: a survey-based approach. Paraplegia 1990; 28: 537–44.
61. Harvey C, Wilson SE, Greene CG, et al. New estimates of the direct costs of traumatic spinal cord injuries: results of a nationwide survey. Paraplegia 1992; 30: 834–50.
62. Hung TK, Albin MS, Brown TD, et al. Biomechanical responses to open experimental spinal cord injury
. Surg Neurol 1975; 4: 271–6.
63. Hung TK, Chang GL, Chang JL, et al. Stress-strain relationship and neurological sequelae of uniaxial elongation of the spinal cord of cats. Surg Neurol 1981; 15: 471–6.
64. Kakulas BA. Pathology of spinal injuries. Cent Nerv Syst Trauma 1984; 1: 117–29.
65. Katoh S, El Masry WS, Jaffray D, et al. Neurologic outcome in conservatively treated patients with incomplete closed traumatic cervical spinal cord injuries. Spine 1996; 21: 2345–51.
66. Kobrine AI, Evans DE, Rizzoli H. Correlation of spinal cord blood flow and function in experimental compression. Surg Neurol 1978; 10: 54–9.
67. Kobrine AI, Evans DE, Rizzoli HV. Experimental acute balloon compression of the spinal cord: factors affecting disappearance and return of the spinal evoked response. J Neurosurg 1979; 51: 841–5.
68. Kraus JF, Franti CE, Riggins RS, et al. Incidence of traumatic spinal cord lesions. J Chronic Dis 1975; 28: 471–92.
69. Krengel WF3, Anderson PA, Henley MB. Early stabilization and decompression for incomplete paraplegia due to a thoracic-level spinal cord injury
. Spine 1993;18:2080–7.
70. Larson SJ, Holst RA, Hemmy DC, et al. Lateral extracavitary approach to traumatic lesions of the thoracic and lumbar spine. J Neurosurg 1976; 45: 628–37.
71. Lee AS, MacLean JC, Newton DA. Rapid traction for reduction of cervical spine dislocations. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1994; 76: 352–6.
72. Levi L, Wolf A, Belzberg H. Hemodynamic parameters in patients with acute cervical cord trauma: description, intervention, and prediction of outcome. Neurosurgery 1993; 33: 1007–16 (discussion 1016).
73. Levi L, Wolf A, Rigamonti D, et al. Anterior decompression in cervical spine trauma: does the timing
affect the outcome? Neurosurgery 1991; 29: 216–22.
74. Maiman DJ, Larson SJ, Benzel EC. Neurological improvement associated with late decompression of the thoracolumbar spinal cord. Neurosurgery 1984; 14: 302–7.
75. Marshall LF, Knowlton S, Garfin SR, et al. Deterioration following spinal cord injury
: a multicenter study. J Neurosurg 1987; 66: 400–4.
76. Maynard FM, Reynolds GG, Fountain S, et al. Neurological prognosis after traumatic quadriplegia: three-year experience of California Regional Spinal Cord Injury
Care System. J Neurosurg 1979; 50: 611–6.
77. Miller LS, Cotler HB, DeLucia FA, et al. Biomechanical analysis of cervical distraction. Spine 1987; 12: 831–7.
78. Mirza SK, Krengel WF 3, Chapman JR, et al. Early versus delayed surgery
for acute cervical spinal cord injury
. Clin Orthop 1999; 359: 104–14.
79. Murphy KP, Opitz JL, Cabanela ME, et al. Cervical fractures and spinal cord injury
: outcome of surgical and nonsurgical management. Mayo Clin Proc 1990; 65: 949–59.
80. Ng WP, Fehlings MG, Cuddy B, et al. Surgical treatment of acute spinal cord injury
pilot study #2: evaluation of protocol for decompressive surgery
within 8 hours after injury. Neurosurg Focus 1999; 6: 3.
81. Nystrom B, Berglund JE. Spinal cord restitution following compression injuries in rats. Acta Neurol Scand 1988; 78: 467–72.
82. Osterholm JL, Mathews GJ. Altered norepinephrine metabolism, following experimental spinal cord injury
: 2. Protection against traumatic spinal cord hemorrhagic necrosis by norepinephrine synthesis blockade with alpha methyl tyrosine. J Neurosurg 1972; 36: 395–401.
83. Panjabi MM. Experimental spinal cord trauma: a biomechanical viewpoint. Paraplegia 1987; 25: 217–20.
84. Petitjean ME, Pointillart V, Daverat P, et al. Administration of methylprednisolone or nimodipine or both versus placebo at the acute phase of spinal cord injury
. J Neurotrauma 1995; 12: 456.
85. Pointillart V, Petitjean ME, Wiart L, et al. Pharmacological therapy of spinal cord injury
during the acute phase. Spinal Cord 2000; 38: 71–6.
86. Rivlin AS, Tator CH. Effect of duration of acute spinal cord compression in a new acute cord injury model in the rat. Surg Neurol 1978; 10: 38–43.
87. Rosner MJ, Elias Z, Coley I. New principles of resuscitation for brain and spinal injury. NC Med J 1984; 45: 701–8.
88. Sonntag VK. Management of bilateral locked facets of the cervical spine. Neurosurgery 1981; 8: 150–2.
89. Star AM, Jones AA, Cotler JM, et al. Immediate closed reduction of cervical spine dislocations using traction. Spine 1990; 15: 1068–72.
90. Tarlov IM. Spinal cord compression studies: III. Time limits for recovery after gradual compression in dogs. Arch Neurol Psychiatry 1954; 71: 588–97.
91. Tarlov IM. Spinal cord injuries: early treatment. Surg Clin North Am 1955; 35: 591–607.
92. Tarlov IM. Spinal cord compression: mechanisms of paralysis and treatment. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1957.
93. Tarlov IM, Klinger H. Spinal cord compression studies: II. Time limits for recovery after acute compression in dogs. Arch Neurol Psychiatry 1954; 71: 271–90.
94. Tator CH. Spine-spinal cord relationships in spinal cord trauma. Clin Neurosurg 1983; 30: 479–94.
95. Tator CH, Duncan EG, Edmonds VE, et al. Comparison of surgical and conservative management in 208 patients with acute spinal cord injury
. Can J Neurol Sci 1987; 14: 60–9.
96. Tator CH, Duncan EG, Edmonds VE, et al. Complications and costs of management of acute spinal cord injury
. Paraplegia 1993; 31: 700–14.
97. Tator CH, Duncan EG, Edmonds VE, et al. Neurological recovery, mortality and length of stay after acute spinal cord injury
associated with changes in management. Paraplegia 1995; 33: 254–62.
98. Tator CH, Fehlings MG. Review of the secondary injury theory of acute spinal cord trauma with emphasis on vascular mechanisms. J Neurosurg 1991; 75: 15–26.
99. Tator CH, Fehlings MG, Thorpe K, et al. Current use and timing
of spinal surgery
for management of acute spinal cord injury
in North America: results of a retrospective multicenter study. J Neurosurg Spine 1999; 71: 12–18.
100. Thienprasit P, Bantli H, Bloedel JR, et al. Effect of delayed local cooling on experimental spinal cord injury
. J Neurosurg 1975; 42: 150–4.
101. Transfeldt EE, White D, Bradford DS, et al. Delayed anterior decompression in patients with spinal cord and cauda equina injuries of the thoracolumbar spine. Spine 1990; 15: 953–7.
102. Vaccaro AR, Daugherty RJ, Sheehan TP, et al. Neurologic outcome of early versus late surgery
for cervical spinal cord injury
. Spine 1997; 22: 2609–13.
103. Vale FL, Burns J, Jackson AB, et al. Combined medical and surgical treatment after acute spinal cord injury
: results of a prospective pilot study to assess the merits of aggressive medical resuscitation and blood pressure management. J Neurosurg 1997; 87: 239–46.
104. Wagner FC Jr, Chehrazi B. Early decompression and neurological outcome in acute cervical spinal cord injuries. J Neurosurg 1982; 56: 699–705.
105. Wagner FC Jr, Stewart WB. Effect of trauma dose on spinal cord edema. J Neurosurg 1981; 54: 802–6.
106. Waters RL, Adkins RH, Yakura JS, et al. Effect of surgery
on motor recovery following traumatic spinal cord injury
. Spinal Cord 1996; 34: 188–92.
107. Waters RL, Meyer PR Jr, Adkins RH, et al. Emergency, acute, and surgical management of spine trauma. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 80: 1383–90.
108. Weinshel SS, Maiman DJ, Baek P, et al. Neurologic recovery in quadriplegia following operative treatment. J Spinal Disord 1990; 3: 244–9.
109. Wiberg J, Hauge HN. Neurological outcome after surgery
for thoracic and lumbar spine injuries. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1988; 91: 106–12.
110. Wilberger JE. Diagnosis and management of spinal cord trauma. J Neurotrauma 1991; 8 (suppl 1): 21–8.
111. Wilmot CB, Hall KM. Evaluation of the acute management of tetraplegia: conservative versus surgical treatment. Paraplegia 1986; 24: 148–53.
112. Wolf A, Levi L, Mirvis S, et al. Operative management of bilateral facet dislocation. J Neurosurg 1991; 75: 883–90.
113. Woolf SH. Practice guidelines: a new reality in medicine. Arch Intern Med 1993; 153: 2646–55.
114. Wu L, Marino RJ, Herbison GJ, et al. Recovery of zero-grade muscles in the zone of partial preservation in motor complete quadriplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1992; 73: 40–3.
115. Young W, Koreh I. Potassium and calcium changes in injured spinal cords. Brain Res 1986; 365: 42–53.
116. Zhang Y, Hillered L, Olsson Y, et al. Time course of energy perturbation after compression trauma to the spinal cord: an experimental study in the rat using microdialysis. Surg Neurol 1993; 39: 297–304.