Treatment of Acute Traumatic Central Cord Syndrome: A Study of North American Trauma Centers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Central cord syndrome (CCS) is expected to become the most common traumatic spinal cord injury, yet its optimal management remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate variability in nonoperative vs operative treatment for CCS between trauma centers in the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program, identify patient- and hospital-level factors associated with treatment, and determine the association of treatment with outcomes. METHODS: Adults with CCS were identified from the Trauma Quality Improvement Program database (2014-2016). Mixed-effects modeling with a random intercept for trauma centers was used to examine the adjusted association of patient- and hospital-level variables with nonoperative treatment. The random-effects output of the model assessed the risk-adjusted variability in nonoperative treatment across centers. Outlier hospitals were identified, and the median odds ratio was calculated. The adjusted effect of nonoperative treatment on mortality, morbidity, and hospital length of stay (LOS) was examined at the patient and hospital level by mixed-effects regression. RESULTS: Three thousand, nine hundred twenty-eight patients across 255 centers were eligible; of these, 1523 (38.8%) were treated nonoperatively. Older age, noncommercial insurance (odds ratio [OR] 1.26, 95% CI 1.08-1.48, P = .004), absence of fracture (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.49-0.68, P < .001), severe head injury (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.09-1.82, P = .008), and comatose presentation (1.82, 95% CI 1.15-2.89, P = .011) were associated with nonoperative treatment. Twenty-eight hospitals were outliers, and the median odds ratio was 2.02. Patients receiving nonoperative treatment had shorter LOS (mean difference -4.65 days). Nonoperative treatment was associated with lesser in-hospital morbidity (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.37-0.63, P < .001) at the patient level. There was no difference in mortality. CONCLUSION: Operative decision-making for CCS is influenced by patient factors. There remains substantial variability between trauma centers not explained by case-mix differences. Nonoperative treatment was associated with shorter hospital LOS and lesser inpatient morbidity.

Central cord syndrome definitions, variations and limitations.

Central cord syndrome (CCS) is the most common, yet most controversial, among the different spinal cord injury (SCI) incomplete syndromes. Since its original description in 1954, many variations have been described while maintaining the core characteristic of disproportionate weakness in the upper extremities compared to the lower extremities. Several definitions have been proposed in an attempt to quantify this difference, including a widely accepted criterion of ≥10 motor points in favor of the lower extremities. Nevertheless, recent reports have recommended revisiting the terminology and criteria of CCS as existing definitions do not capture the entire essence of the syndrome. Due to methodological differences, the full extent of CCS is not known, and a large variation in prevalence has been described. This review classifies the different definitions of CCS and describes some inherent limitations, highlighting the need for universal quantifiable criteria.

Acute Traumatic Myelopathy: Rethinking Central Cord Syndrome.

Central cord syndrome (CCS) is an incomplete spinal cord injury that consists of both sensory and motor changes of the upper and lower extremities. CCS most commonly occurs after trauma to the cervical spine leading to acute neurological changes. Despite being the most common incomplete spinal cord injury with the best outcomes, optimal treatment remains controversial. Although clinical practice has shifted from primarily conservative management to early surgical intervention, many questions remain unanswered and treatment remains varied. One of the most limiting aspects of CCS remains the diagnosis itself. CCS, by definition, is a syndrome with a very specific pattern of neurological deficits. In practice and in the literature, CCS has been used to describe a spectrum of neurological conditions and traumatic morphologies. Establishing clarity will allow for more accurate decision making by clinicians involved in the care of these injuries. The authors emphasize that a more precise term for the clinical condition in question is acute traumatic myelopathy: an acute cervical cord injury in the setting of a stable spine with either congenital and/or degenerative stenosis.

[Acute Traumatic Central Cord Syndrome: Etiology, Pathophysiology, Clinical Manifestation, and Treatment]. / Akutes traumatisches Central-Cord-Syndrom: Ätiologie, Pathophysiologie, klinische Manifestation und Behandlung.

Acute Traumatic Central Cord Syndrome: Etiology, Pathophysiology, Clinical Manifestation, and Treatment Abstract. The acute traumatic central cord syndrome (ATCCS) represents an injury to the spinal cord with disproportionately greater motor impairment of the upper than the lower extremities, with bladder dysfunction and with varying degrees of sensory loss below the level of the respective lesion. The mechanism of ATCCS is most commonly a traumatic hyperextension injury of the cervical spine at the base of an underlying spondylosis and spinal stenosis. The mean age is 53 years, and segments C4 to Th1 are most frequently affected. In addition to medical history and clinical examination, the definitive diagnosis is made by magnetic resonance imaging, where T2-hyperintense lesions are typically observed in the affected spinal cord segment. Surgical decompression (and fusion) of the respective segment is recommended to prevent repetitive trauma to the spinal cord and to stop progression of clinical symptoms. Patients with diagnosed ATCCS and who are treated adequately usually have a good prognosis.

Review of Treatment for Central Spinal Neuropathic Pain and Its Effect on Quality of Life: Implications for Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder.

OBJECTIVES: Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) causes disabling and persistent central neuropathic pain (NP). Because the pain syndrome in NMOSD is severe and often intractable to analgesic treatment, it interferes with quality of life in patients. No interventional trials have been published looking at response to interventions for pain in NMOSD. This is a synthesis of the literature surveying the impact on quality of life of interventions in all mechanisms of central spinal NP. This review has important implications for management of pain in NMOSD. METHODS AND DATA SOURCES: A systematic database search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL Plus with keywords including "spinal cord," "quality of life," and "neuropathic pain" in an attempt to identify original research that targeted spinal NP treatment and used quality of life as an outcome measure. Both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments were sought out. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies meeting our eligibility criteria were identified and evaluated, 13 using pharmacologic treatments and 8 using nonpharmacologic interventions. Overall, sample sizes were modest, and effects on decreasing pain and/or improving quality of life were suboptimal. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides researchers with a foundation from which to start a more thorough and thoughtful investigation into the management of NP in NMOSD and underscores the importance of including quality of life as a clinically meaningful outcome measure.

Central Cord Syndrome.

Central cord syndrome is a common spinal cord injury. The purpose of this review article is to provide an overview of the anatomy, pathophysiology, prognosis, and management of this disorder.

Hyperextension injury of the cervical spine with central cord syndrome.

PURPOSE: Traumatic central cord syndrome (TCCS) is the most commonly encountered type of incomplete spinal cord injury. TCCS typically occurs in patients over the age of 50 with a narrow spinal canal and follows an acute hyperextension injury of the cervical spine. Here, we report on the demographics of TCCS patients, their clinical course and outcomes, and the factors that may have influenced these outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective folder review of patients who presented to our facility between January 2004 and December 2008 following hyperextension injury of the cervical spine and with the clinical manifestations of a central cord syndrome. Patient details were obtained from the acute spinal cord injury register at Groote Schuur Hospital and the patient folders, radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging films were reviewed. Predetermined data points were identified, tabulated and analysed, with only information from the injury-related admission being included. RESULTS: An ASIA motor score of ≥60 on admission or discharge correlated with an 80 % chance of being able to walk at discharge from hospital. An ASIA motor score of ≤50 on admission correlated with an 80 % chance of not walking at discharge. An ASIA motor score of ≤50 at discharge meant a patient was not only unable to walk, but required placement in a spinal injury rehabilitation centre. Further, if a patient had a cervical spinal canal diameter of ≥8 mm they had a 50 % chance of clinical improvement and nearly 80 % chance of a functional outcome. CONCLUSION: The Groote Schuur Hospital patient population differs from the international norm, particularly with respect to age and mechanism of injury. The ASIA motor score and cervical spine canal diameter proved to be useful predictors of outcome. Within our patient group, timing of surgery did not appear to influence the outcome.

Laminoplasty versus conservative treatment for acute cervical spinal cord injury caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament after minor trauma.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: No reports to date have accurately evaluated the management for acute spinal cord injury (SCI) caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) after minor trauma. PURPOSE: To assess whether outcomes of laminoplasty is better than conservative treatment. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A retrospective study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Thirty-one patients underwent surgery (L group) and 29 patients underwent conservative treatment (C group). OUTCOME MEASURES: Disability, muscle strength, sensation, and general health status. METHODS: Patients were managed according to routine clinical practice and the results between groups were compared. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were assessed at admission, discharge, 6 months and at the final visit. Causes for trauma, duration of hospital stay, and complication were also evaluated. RESULTS: Causes for trauma included falling, traffic accidents and sports. Mixed and segmental types were the most frequent cause of OPLL resulting into SCI. Duration of hospital stay and complications were less in the L group. Motor and sensory scores increased in the L group at discharge (p<.05) and at 6 months (p<.05), and maintained thereafter (p>.05); scores improved significantly in the C group at 6 months (p<.05), with a slight deterioration with time (p>.05); scores in the L group were higher than in the C group at each time point after surgery (p<.05). Bodily pain and mental health in SF-36 improved at discharge in the L group (p<.05); all scores improved at 6 months in both the groups (p<.05), with better improvements in the L group (p<.05). The canal diameter increased and occupation ratio decreased in the L group (p<.05), and maintained thereafter (p<.05); a slight increase of occupation ratio was observed in the C group (p>.05). Lordotic angle and range of motion were maintained in both the groups, with no significance between groups (p>.05). High-signal intensity decreased at 6 months (p<.05) in the L group; no significant change was found in the C group during the follow-up (p>.05); Significant difference was detected between the groups at 6 months and at the final visit (p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Most of the OPLL patients displayed as incomplete SCI after minor trauma. Although spontaneous improvement of SCI without surgery is often observed, laminoplasty has more satisfactory outcomes, prevents late compression of cord, and reduces perioperative complications, although with no significant benefit in cervical alignment and range of motion.

Trends in the treatment for traumatic central cord syndrome without bone injury in the United States from 2000 to 2009.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for traumatic central cord syndrome (TCCS) without bone injury is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to examine trends in the treatment for TCCS without bone injury in the United States. METHODS: Clinical data were obtained from the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2000 to 2009. Patients with TCCS without bone injury were identified and divided into those receiving surgical treatment and those receiving conservative treatment according to the International Classification of Diseases-9th Rev.-Clinical Modification codes. Patient and health care system-related demographic data were retrieved. Trends in the treatment and patient outcomes were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was then performed to identify the predictors for surgical treatment. RESULTS: The ratio of patients who underwent surgical treatment was 27.1%. This ratio increased from 14.8% in 2000 to 30.5% in 2009 (p = 0.008). A total of 47.2% of surgical procedures were performed between Days 0 and 2. Multivariate analysis revealed that larger hospital size was a significant predictor for surgical treatment and patients who received treatment in Northeastern region were less likely to undergo surgical treatment. Comparisons between patients receiving surgical and conservative treatment revealed that those receiving surgical treatment had significantly higher overall in-hospital complication rate (18.6% vs. 14.5%), lower pulmonary embolism rate (0.5% vs. 1.2%), lower in-hospital mortality rate (2.0% vs. 2.7%), longer hospital stays (11.2 days vs. 9.9 days), and increased total hospital costs ($93,940 vs. $50,701). CONCLUSION: The ratio of patients who underwent surgical treatment for TCCS without bone injury increased from 2000 to 2009. Approximately half of surgical procedures were performed from Days 0 to 2. Patients who received treatment in a small hospital or the Northeastern region were less likely to undergo surgical treatment. Although the overall in-hospital complication rate was higher in patients with surgical treatment, pulmonary embolism and in-hospital mortality rates were higher in patients with conservative treatment than those in patients with surgical treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiologic study, level III. Therapeutic study, level IV.

Evidence-based management of central cord syndrome.

OBJECT: Evidence-based medicine is used to examine the current treatment options, timing of surgical intervention, and prognostic factors in the management of patients with traumatic central cord syndrome (TCCS). METHODS: A computerized literature search of the National Library of Medicine database, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar was performed for published material between January 1966 and February 2013 using key words and Medical Subject Headings. Abstracts were reviewed and selected, with the articles segregated into 3 main categories: surgical versus conservative management, timing of surgery, and prognostic factors. Evidentiary tables were then assembled, summarizing data and quality of evidence (Classes I-III) for papers included in this review. RESULTS: The authors compiled 3 evidentiary tables summarizing 16 studies, all of which were retrospective in design. Regarding surgical intervention versus conservative management, there was Class III evidence to support the superiority of surgery for patients presenting with TCCS. In regards to timing of surgery, most Class III evidence demonstrated no difference in early versus late surgical management. Most Class III studies agreed that older age, especially age greater than 60-70 years, correlated with worse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: No Class I or Class II evidence was available to determine the efficacy of surgery, timing of surgical intervention, or prognostic factors in patients managed for TCCS. Hence, there is a need to perform well-controlled prospective studies and randomized controlled clinical trials to further investigate the optimal management (surgical vs conservative) and timing of surgical intervention in patients suffering from TCCS.

Not all spinal cord injuries involve a fracture.

A middle-aged unrestrained driver involved in a minor motor vehicle crash arrived in the emergency department in complete spinal immobilization. The patient was initially moving both arms and legs spontaneously to commands, crying out in pain and complaining of pain out of proportion to his physical injuries. The only visible injury was a minor abrasion to the forehead. Spinal cord injuries related to trauma are not always obvious. Central cord syndrome (CCS) should be included in the differential diagnosis for spinal cord injuries, even with a minor hyperextension injury without a cervical spine fracture. This case study outlines the etiology, pathophysiology, diagnostic tests, and management of a patient with CCS.

Hyperextension cervical spine injuries and traumatic central cord syndrome.

Traumatic central cord syndrome (TCCS), regardless of its biomechanics, is the most frequently encountered incomplete spinal cord injury. Patients with TCCS present with disproportionate weakness of the upper extremities, and variable sensory loss and bladder dysfunction. Fractures and/or subluxations, forced hyperextension, and herniated nucleus pulposus are the main pathogenetic mechanisms of TCCS. Nearly 50% of patients with TCCS suffer from congenital or degenerative spinal stenosis and sustained their injuries during hyperextension as originally described by Schneider in 1954. Immunohistochemical and imaging studies indicate mild to moderate insult to axons and their ensheathing myelin in the lateral funiculi culminating in cytoskeletal injury and impaired conduction. More than one-half of these patients enjoy spontaneous recovery of motor weakness; however, as time goes on, lack of manual dexterity, neuropathic pain, spasticity, bladder dysfunction, and imbalance of gait render their activities of daily living nearly impossible. Based on the current level of evidence, there is no clear indication of the timing of decompression for relief of sustained spinal cord compression in hyperextension injuries. Future research, taking advantage of validated digital imaging data such as maximum canal compromise, maximum spinal cord compression, and lesion length on the CT and MR images, as well as more sensitive measures of bladder and hand function, spasticity, and neuropathic pain may help tailor surgery for a specific group of these patients.

Recurrent central cord syndrome at the level of a solid cervical vertebral fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: A case of a solid cervical vertebral fusion that failed to protect against recurrent central cord syndrome at the same spinal level is described. OBJECTIVES: To alert clinicians to the potential for incomplete spinal cord lesions at the same level as cervical vertebral fusions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The clinical symptomatology of central cord syndrome is discussed and the advantages of T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in such cases is considered. No prior reports of central cord syndrome occurring directly posterior to a solidly fused disc segment were found in the literature. METHODS: The clinical and T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging features associated with central cord syndrome are presented. The traumatized region developed immediately posterior to the site of an anterior cervical diskectomy and uncovertebral osteophytectomy between the fourth and fifth cervical vertebrae with bone grafting that had been performed more than 3 years earlier. RESULTS: Symptoms of the central cord syndrome resolved over the course of 4 months with no other intervention other than the use of a Philadelphia cervical collar. Five years later, the patient remained symptom free. CONCLUSION: This case illustrates that clinicians must be aware of the potential occurrence of central cord syndrome in patients with solidly fused cervical segments, and that cervical fusion does not necessarily protect against future incomplete spinal cord injury, such as central cord syndrome, at the level of the fusion.