You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

18 October 2021

Spinal Cord Signal Change on Magnetic Resonance Imaging May Predict Worse Clinical In- and Outpatient Outcomes in Patients with Spinal Cord Injury: A Prospective Multicenter Study in 459 Patients

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5T 2S8, Canada
2
Division of Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada
3
Department of Orthopedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland
4
Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary Combined Spine Program, Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
J. Clin. Med.2021, 10(20), 4778;https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10204778
This article belongs to the Special Issue Management of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy and Spinal Cord Injury
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Prognostic factors for clinical outcome after spinal cord (SC) injury (SCI) are limited but important in patient management and education. There is a lack of evidence regarding magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical outcomes in SCI patients. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether baseline MRI features predicted the clinical course of the disease. This study is an ancillary to the prospective North American Clinical Trials Network (NACTN) registry. Patients were enrolled from 2005–2017. MRI within 72 h of injury and a minimum follow-up of one year were available for 459 patients. Patients with American Spinal Injury Association impairment scale (AIS) E were excluded. Patients were grouped into those with (n = 354) versus without (n = 105) SC signal change on MRI T2-weighted images. Logistic regression analysis adjusted for commonly known a priori confounders (age and baseline AIS). Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was any adverse event. Secondary outcomes were AIS at the baseline and final follow-up, length of hospital stay (LOS), and mortality. A regression model adjusted for age and baseline AIS. Patients with intrinsic SC signal change were younger (46.0 (interquartile range (IQR) 29.0 vs. 50.0 (IQR 20.5) years, p = 0.039). There were no significant differences in the other baseline variables, gender, body mass index, comorbidities, and injury location. There were more adverse events in patients with SC signal change (230 (65.0%) vs. 47 (44.8%), p < 0.001; odds ratio (OR) = 2.09 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31–3.35), p = 0.002). The most common adverse event was cardiopulmonary (186 (40.5%)). Patients were less likely to be in the AIS D category with SC signal change at baseline (OR = 0.45 (95% CI 0.28–0.72), p = 0.001) and in the AIS D or E category at the final follow-up (OR = 0.36 (95% CI 0.16–0.82), p = 0.015). The length of stay was longer in patients with SC signal change (13.0 (IQR 17.0) vs. 11.0 (IQR 14.0), p = 0.049). There was no difference between the groups in mortality (11 (3.2%) vs. 4 (3.9%)). MRI SC signal change may predict adverse events and overall LOS in the SCI population. If present, patients are more likely to have a worse baseline clinical presentation (i.e., AIS) and in- or outpatient clinical outcome after one year. Patients with SC signal change may benefit from earlier, more aggressive treatment strategies and need to be educated about an unfavorable prognosis.

Key Points

1. This is a report on a prospective registry with an exceptionally large sample size of 459 traumatic spinal cord injury patients and a long follow-up for trauma populations;
2. Spinal cord (SC) signal change on initial magnetic resonance imaging may be an independent predictor of adverse events after controlling for age and baseline neurological impairment (odds ratio of 2.09 for adverse events; odds ratios of 0.45 and 0.36 for ambulation at baseline and final follow-up, respectively);
3. Patients with SC signal change may benefit from earlier, more aggressive treatment strategies and need to be educated about an unfavorable prognosis.

1. Introduction

Spinal cord (SC) injury (SCI) is a devastating event and risk factors for the clinical outcome play an important role in patient management and education. The prevalence of traumatic SCI ranges from 236–1009 per million [1], but is likely underestimated due to a high mortality rate at the time of injury and limited diagnosis. One of the highest incidences of SCI is found in the United States, with 54 cases per million per year [2], while low rates have been reported for Spain with 8 cases per million population [3]. The levels of injury vary and incomplete tetraplegia (34%) is more common than complete paraplegia (25%), complete tetraplegia (22%), and incomplete paraplegia (17%) [4].
Physicians struggle with providing optimal care, defining the resources they need, and explaining the prognosis due to limited available data. Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a powerful imaging modality, there has been a lack of evidence regarding prospective MRI assessment and potential clinical outcomes [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. A limited number of studies have reported on the association between SC intraparenchymal signal change and the clinical outcome [5,6,7,8,11,13,14,15,16,17,18,19], but these studies have been limited by small sample sizes with heterogeneous populations. Further, these reports also lacked long-term follow-up [5,10], inclusion of injuries to the entire spine [6], patients with an ossified posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) [7,8,14], SCI without radiographic abnormality (SCIWORA) [11], upper extremity impairment [16], and postoperative imaging assessment [19].
Therefore, this study aimed to investigate whether baseline MRI features predicted the clinical course of the disease. To definitively understand this relationship, a large, prospective patient cohort with SCI was examined. Based on preliminary understandings of SCI and radiological findings, it was hypothesized that MRI-assessed SC signal change at baseline would be a predictor for increased in- and outpatient adverse events and worse functional outcomes.

2. Materials and Methods

This is a study based on data from the prospective North American Clinical Trials Network (NACTN) registry [20,21], with prospective collection of imaging data and pre-determined clinical endpoints after ethical approval (CAPCR-ID: 05-0626) and with informed consent. NACTN, established in 2004, is a consortium of international neurosurgical institutions. The database is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (accessed on 13 October 2021) [22]. NACTN’s goals are to organize a multicenter network and provide a large database with which to study and improve the course of disease and adverse events of SCI.
Patients were enrolled into the NACTN database from June 2005 to March 2017. Neurologically intact patients and those with American Spinal Injury Association impairment scale (AIS) E were excluded. Patients were included if MRI was performed within 72 h of the SCI and a minimum clinical follow-up evaluation at one year was available, of which 459 patients met these criteria. Patients were grouped into those with (n = 354) versus (vs.) without (n = 105) SC signal change detected on their MRI immediately after injury. MRI SC signal change was defined as sagittal and/or axial T2-weighted signal change, read by trained radiologists and entered into the database by each participating site [23]. The MRI scanner type and field strength varied depending on the institution. SC signal change was chosen as it is thought to represent injury to the SC, which likely has implications for clinical function.
The primary outcome was the presence of one or more adverse events. The definition of an adverse event was that offered by Jiang et al. [24], including all adverse events recorded by the participating centers consisting of cardiopulmonary, pulmonary embolus, deep vein thrombosis, gastrointestinal and genitourinary, hematologic, skin, systemic infection, urinary tract infection, wound infection, neurological deterioration, hardware failure, and other (unspecified) adverse events.
The secondary outcome measures were: baseline and final AIS at the last follow-up [4], length of hospital stay, and mortality.
An extensive literature search was also undertaken for previous literature on prospective studies about acute SCI, MRI, and complications (Table 1. PubMed.gov was searched with the terms “prospective, acute spinal cord injury, magnetic resonance imaging, complications”.
Table 1. Excluded studies of previous literature on prospective studies about acute spinal cord injury, magnetic resonance imaging, and complications (n = 41) [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51].
Data are given in absolute numbers with percentages (%) and medians with interquartile ranges (IQRs). For univariate analysis, the Wilcoxon rank sum and chi-squared tests were used. For multivariate analysis, logistic regression models were chosen due to the categorical nature of the data. AIS was categorized into AIS D (ambulatory) vs. AIS A-C (non-ambulatory). The analysis adjusted for commonly known a priori confounders (instead of a preliminary analysis for predictor identification), age, and baseline AIS, and included 435 patients due to missing data in the age category (n = 24). Surgery was not included in the analysis since this would have reduced the patient number even further. Of note, even when including this variable, the results did not change substantially. The performance of the model was acceptable according to the goodness-of-fit test by Hosmer-Lemeshow. We also calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), likelihood ratios (LRs) and area under the curve. p-values < 5% were considered significant. In a post hoc power calculation, the power was 96.0% (considering the adverse events in each SC signal change group (65.0% (n = 354) vs. 44.8% (n = 105)) and an alpha of 5.0%). Analyses were carried out using Stata (version IC 13.1; StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA).

3. Results

SCI traumatic patients with MRI SC signal change were younger (46.0 (interquartile range (IQR)) 29.0 vs. 50.0 (IQR 20.5) years, p = 0.039). There were no differences in the other baseline variables, i.e., gender (females: 65 (19.1%) vs. 21 (20.0%), p = 0.831), body mass index (25.9 (IQR 5.9) vs. 25.8 (7.0), p = 0.708), smoking (95 (27.8%) vs. 20 (19.6%), p = 0.098), comorbidities (138 (40.1%) vs. 42 (40.0%), p = 0.983), mechanism of injury (fall: 132 (39.1%) vs. 49 (49.5%), p = 0.116), and injury location (cervical: 273 (78.5%) vs. 88 (84.6%), p = 0.388) (Table 2).
Table 2. Baseline data for spinal cord injury patients stratified by radiographic spinal cord signal change (n = 459).
Adverse events were observed in 277 (60.4%) patients. The most common adverse event was cardiopulmonary (186 (40.5%)). There were more adverse events in patients with SC signal change (230 (65.0%) vs. 47 (44.8%), p < 0.001) (Table 3). These differences remained significant in a logistic regression model (odds ratio (OR) = 2.09 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32–3.35), p = 0.002), indicating that patients with SC signal change were 109% more likely to develop an adverse event than patients without SC signal change, when controlling for other factors (Table 4). The sensitivity of the SC signal change for adverse events was 83.0% and the specificity was 31.9%. The PPV was 64.9% and the NPV was 55.2%. The positive LR was 1.22 (95% CI 1.09–1.36) and the negative LR was 0.53 (0.38–0.75). The area under the curve was 0.57 (95% CI 0.53–0.62).
Table 3. Clinical outcome data for spinal cord injury patients stratified by radiographic spinal cord signal change (n = 459).
Table 4. Logistic regression model for adverse events in spinal cord injury patients (n = 435).
Patients with SC signal change at baseline had significantly worse neurologic injuries (OR = 0.45 (95% CI 0.28–0.72), p = 0.001) and final follow-ups (OR = 0.36 (95% CI 0.16–0.82), p = 0.015) when adjusting for age (OR = 1.00 (95% CI 0.99–1.02), p = 0.379 and OR = 1.03 (95% CI 1.01–1.05), p < 0.001, respectively). This indicated that patients with SC signal change were 55% and 64% less likely to be in the AIS D category at baseline and AIS D or E category at final follow-up after one year, respectively, than patients without SC signal change.
The length of stay was significantly longer in patients with SC signal change (13 (IQR 17.0) vs. 11 (IQR 14.0), p = 0.049). There was no difference in mortality (11 (3.2%) vs. 4 (3.9%), p = 0.767) (Table 2).
The results of the literature search on prospective studies about acute SCI, MRI, and complications are shown in Table 5 and Table S1 in Supplementary Material.
Table 5. Previous literature on prospective studies about acute spinal cord injury, magnetic resonance imaging, and adverse events (n = 41) [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18].

4. Discussion

4.1. Main Findings

This ancillary study on the prospective NACTN registry [20] reviewed 459 patients with a relatively long follow-up in a trauma population of at least one year. The data showed that SC signal change on the initial MRI after traumatic SCI is an independent predictor of adverse events, as defined by Jiang et al. [24]. This factor remained significant even after controlling for age and baseline AIS impairment, and patients with SC signal change were 109% more likely to suffer an adverse event. SC signal change is consistent with significant neurologic impairment in that 55% were ambulatory at baseline and were 64% less likely to be ambulatory at the final follow-up. The length of stay in the hospital was also longer in patients with SC signal change, but there was no difference in mortality. The SC signal intensity appears to be a rapid and accurate method with which to assess the predicted outcome, tailor the treatment options (e.g., early surgery), and educate the patient, so as to potentially alter the actual outcome.
The initial mechanical force acting on the SC is the primary injury. These injuries are mostly due to impact with persistent compression (e.g., bone fracture fragments) but can also be due to impact with transient compression (e.g., hyperextension injury). These forces damage the SC pathways and blood vessels, which leads to secondary injuries by several mechanisms, such as vascular malfunctioning (acute phase), Wallerian degeneration (subacute phase), and glial scarring (chronic phase), as summarized by Alizadeh et al. [54]. In the authors’ opinion, it is very important to obtain and carefully assess initial MRIs after traumatic SCI to make general predictions of the patient’s immediate and long-term outcome.

4.2. Current Knowledge and Addition of Our Findings

The previous literature on the predictive nature of SC signal change for the clinical baseline and outcome in patients with SCI is sparse. A detailed literature search of SCI and MRI signal change was performed with a systematic review [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51] (Table 1 and Table 5). Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, as defined as being prospective and examining acute SCI, MRI, and adverse events [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. Aside from the limited number of studies and their lack of controlling for confounders such as age [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18], the available reports are limited by short-term follow-up (5, 10), a smaller sample size [9,12,13,15,17,18], cervical spine only [6], OPLL [7,8,14], SCIWORA [11], and upper extremity impairment [16].
Herein, the previous literature on associations between imaging findings and clinical outcomes is described. Rutges et al. [5] investigated the MRI signal change during the first three postoperative weeks (n = 19). They reported that the SC T2 signal increased within the first 48 h but decreased thereafter. Martínez-Pérez et al. [6] described the radiologic findings for the neurological prognosis (n = 86). They noted that a T2 signal > 36 millimeters (mm) and facet dislocation predicted a worse neurological outcome. Gu et al. [7] and Kwon et al. [8] studied radiological outcome predictors in SCI patients with ossified posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) (n = 36 and n = 38, respectively). The authors reported that high-intensity zones and a higher intramedullary signal intensity grade, as well as space available for the cord, were associated with worse outcomes. Freund et al. [9] investigated neuronal degeneration above the SCI lesion level (n = 13 and 18 controls). The authors found a rapid decline in cross-sectional spinal cord area and an association between decreased cross-sectional SC loss and improved SC independence. Maeda et al. [10] reported extraneural soft-tissue damage and clinical relevance in patients without bone injury (n = 88). They showed an association between anterior longitudinal disruption, disc damage, and prevertebral hyperintensity with AIS motor scores. Machino et al. [11] reported the occurrence rate of increased signal intensity (ISI) and prevertebral hyperintensity (PVH) in patients with cervical SCI without radiographic abnormality (SCIWORA) (n = 100). They found that ISI and PVH were common (92% and 90%, respectively), particularly in AIS A-B patients (100% each), and noted a negative correlation between the ISI and preoperative Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score as well as its recovery rate. Miyanji et al. [12] studied MRI associations with the neurologic status (n = 100). These authors reported that the maximum SC compression and lesion length were associated with complete motor and sensory SCI. Further, they noted that edema, hemorrhage, cord swelling, stenosis, and soft-tissue injury were associated with complete SCI. Boldin et al. [13] investigated SCI hemorrhage and the length of hematoma as predictors of recovery (n = 29). They reported a hemorrhage >4 mm to be associated with complete injury. The edema and hematoma length were also longer in AIS A patients. Koyanagi et al. [14] investigated radiographic and clinical findings in patients with OPLL. Their results showed intramedullary hyperintensity and paravertebral soft tissue injuries in all four patients with Frankel grades A and B, in 80% with Frankel C, and 56% in Frankel D. Takahashi et al. [15] studied the association between image findings and clinical outcomes (n = 43). They reported that a baseline low-intensity T2 signal was associated with a poor prognosis. A high-intensity signal after two to three weeks was also associated with permanent paralysis. Ishida and Tominaga [16] evaluated MRI predictors for neurological recovery in patients with only upper-extremity impairment (n = 22). Their results showed that an absence of abnormal signal intensity was the best predictor of neurological recovery. Koyanagi et al. [17] reported on MRI predictors of the worse outcomes in patients without a fracture or dislocation (n = 42). Intramedullary hyperintensity on T2-weighted images was associated with more severe neurological deficits. Shimada and Tokioka [18] investigated MRI findings and clinical outcomes. Their results showed that T2-weighted images were associated with the severity of spinal cord damage and clinical outcome.
This study is limited by the inherent issues with registries and the heterogeneity of the SCI population. Since multiple institutions are involved, the exact timing of the MRI, the type and setting of the MRI scanner, and the availability and validity of data regarding the clinical assessments may vary. Future studies may add other potential predictor variables, such as corticosteroid use and comorbidities in their regression models. Although we controlled for age in the final regression model and there were no statistical differences in the mechanism of injury, the cohort with SC signal change was younger and included more motor vehicle accidents. Future studies should focus on this issue. Subsequent studies may also investigate different MRI findings, such as tissue bridges [55], the benefit of early surgical intervention in patients with SC signal change, and the use and prediction of subsequent MRIs and longer follow-ups. Another limitation is that many adverse events were not specified in detail, thus limiting further sub-analysis or assessment of the actual severity of adverse events. Future studies should focus on specifying adverse events in as much detail as possible. Furthermore, cervical SCI accounts for almost 80% of cases in this study, while the number of thoracic SCI cases was low. This constitutes a substantial limitation of this study, which analyzed the entire SCI spectrum, based on this composition. Future studies could opt to include more thoracic SCI cases.

5. Conclusions

MRI SC signal change may predict the clinical course of disease in patients after acute traumatic SCI. If signal change is present, patients are more likely to have a lower baseline clinical presentation as well as a decreased in- or outpatient clinical outcome after one year. Therefore, patients with SC signal change may benefit from earlier and more aggressive treatment strategies and need to be educated about an unfavorable prognosis.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm10204778/s1, Table S1: Excluded studies of previous literature on prospective studies about acute spinal cord injury, magnetic resonance imaging, and complications (n = 41), References S1: Supplementary references.

Author Contributions

T.J. and M.G.F., idea, conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, and drafting the manuscript; M.A.A. and B.R., acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data, F.J., J.H.B., D.W.C., J.R.W., R.G.G., B.A. and J.S.H., acquisition of data. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

No specific funding supported this work.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the University Health Network Research Ethics Board (CAPCR-ID: 05-0626 approved on 9 November 2005).

Data Availability Statement

All data is reported in this study.

Acknowledgments

The NACTN SCI Registry is supported by the US Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity (USAMRAA) under Contract No. W81XWH-16-C-0031 and earlier Department of Defense Awards. M.G.F. is supported by the Gerry and Tootsie Halbert Chair in Neural Repair and Regeneration and the DeZwirek Family Foundation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

References

  1. Cripps, R.A.; Lee, B.; Wing, P.; Weerts, E.; Mackay, J.; Brown, D. A global map for traumatic spinal cord injury epidemiology: Towards a living data repository for injury prevention. Spinal Cord 2010, 49, 493–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Dixon, G.S.; Danesh, J.N.; Caradoc-Davies, T.H. Epidemiology of Spinal Cord Injury in New Zealand. Neuroepidemiology 1993, 12, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Biering-Sørensen, F.; Pedersen, V.; Clausen, S. Epidemiology of spinal cord lesions in Denmark. Spinal Cord 1990, 28, 105–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Kirshblum, S.C.; Burns, S.P.; Biering-Sørensen, F.; Donovan, W.; Graves, D.; Jha, A.; Johansen, M.; Jones, L.; Krassioukov, A.; Mulcahey, M.; et al. International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury (Revised 2011). J. Spinal Cord Med. 2011, 34, 535–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rutges, J.P.H.J.; Kwon, B.K.; Heran, M.; Ailon, T.; Street, J.T.; Dvorak, M.F. A prospective serial MRI study following acute traumatic cervical spinal cord injury. Eur. Spine J. 2017, 26, 2324–2332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Martínez-Pérez, R.; Cepeda, S.; Paredes, I.; Alen, J.F.; Lagares, A. MRI Prognostication Factors in the Setting of Cervical Spinal Cord Injury Secondary to Trauma. World Neurosurg. 2017, 101, 623–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gu, J.; Guan, F.; Zhu, L.; Guan, G.; Chi, Z.; Li, W.; Yu, Z. Predictors of Surgical Outcome in Acute Spinal Cord Injury Patients with Cervical Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament. World Neurosurg. 2016, 90, 364–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kwon, S.Y.; Shin, J.J.; Lee, J.H.; Cho, W.H. Prognostic factors for surgical outcome in spinal cord injury associated with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL). J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2015, 10, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Freund, P.; Weiskopf, N.; Ashburner, J.; Wolf, K.; Sutter, R.; Altmann, D.R.; Friston, K.; Thompson, A.; Curt, A. MRI investigation of the sensorimotor cortex and the corticospinal tract after acute spinal cord injury: A prospective longitudinal study. Lancet Neurol. 2013, 12, 873–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Maeda, T.; Ueta, T.; Mori, E.; Yugue, I.; Kawano, O.; Takao, T.; Sakai, H.; Okada, S.; Shiba, K. Soft-Tissue Damage and Segmental Instability in Adult Patients With Cervical Spinal Cord Injury Without Major Bone Injury. Spine 2012, 37, E1560–E1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Machino, M.; Yukawa, Y.; Ito, K.; Nakashima, H.; Kanbara, S.; Morita, D.; Kato, F. Can magnetic resonance imaging reflect the prognosis in patients of cervical spinal cord injury without radiographic abnormality? Spine 2011, 36, E1568–E1572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Miyanji, F.; Furlan, J.C.; Aarabi, B.; Arnold, P.M.; Fehlings, M.G. Acute Cervical Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: MR Imaging Findings Correlated with Neurologic Outcome—Prospective Study with 100 Consecutive Patients1. Radiology 2007, 243, 820–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Boldin, C.; Raith, J.; Fankhauser, F.; Haunschmid, C.; Schwantzer, G.; Schweighofer, F. Predicting Neurologic Recovery in Cervical Spinal Cord Injury With Postoperative MR Imaging. Spine 2006, 31, 554–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Koyanagi, I.; Iwasaki, Y.; Hida, K.; Imamura, H.; Fujimoto, S.; Akino, M. Acute Cervical Cord Injury Associated with Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament. Neurosurgery 2003, 53, 887–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Takahashi, M.; Harada, Y.; Inoue, H.; Shimada, K. Traumatic cervical cord injury at C3-4 without radiographic abnormalities: Correlation of magnetic resonance findings with clinical features and outcome. J. Orthop. Surg. 2002, 10, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ishida, Y.; Tominaga, T. Predictors of Neurologic Recovery in Acute Central Cervical Cord Injury with Only Upper Extremity Impairment. Spine 2002, 27, 1652–1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Koyanagi, I.; Iwasaki, Y.; Hida, K.; Akino, M.; Imamura, H.; Abe, H. Acute cervical cord injury without fracture or dislocation of the spinal column. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2000, 93, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shimada, K.; Tokioka, T. Sequential MR studies of cervical cord injury: Correlation with neurological damage and clinical outcome. Spinal Cord 1999, 37, 410–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Aarabi, B.; Sansur, C.A.; Ibrahimi, D.M.; Simard, J.M.; Hersh, D.; Le, E.; Diaz, C.; Massetti, J.; Akhtar-Danesh, N. Intramedullary Lesion Length on Postoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging is a Strong Predictor of ASIA Impairment Scale Grade Conversion Following Decompressive Surgery in Cervical Spinal Cord Injury. Neurosurgery 2016, 80, 610–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Grossman, R.G.; Toups, E.G.; Frankowski, R.F.; Burau, K.D.; Howley, S. North American Clinical Trials Network for the Treatment of Spinal Cord Injury: Goals and progress. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2012, 17, 6–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Grossman, R.G.; Frankowski, R.F.; Burau, K.D.; Toups, E.G.; Crommett, J.W.; Johnson, M.M.; Fehlings, M.; Tator, C.H.; Shaffrey, C.I.; Harkema, S.J.; et al. Incidence and severity of acute complications after spinal cord injury. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2012, 17, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. ClinicalTrials.gov. Spinal Cord Injury Registry—NACTN (NACTN). 2005. Available online: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00178724?term=NACTN&recr=Open&cond=spinal+cord+injury&rank=1 (accessed on 13 October 2021).
  23. Rhee, J.; Tetreault, L.A.; Chapman, J.R.; Wilson, J.R.; Smith, J.S.; Martin, A.R.; Dettori, J.R.; Fehlings, M.G. Nonoperative Versus Operative Management for the Treatment Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: An Updated Systematic Review. Glob. Spine J. 2017, 7 (Suppl. 3), 35S–41S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jiang, F.; Jaja, B.N.; Kurpad, S.N.; Badhiwala, J.H.; Aarabi, B.; Grossman, R.G.; Harrop, J.S.; Guest, J.D.; Schär, R.T.; Shaffrey, C.I.; et al. Acute Adverse Events After Spinal Cord Injury and Their Relationship to Long-term Neurologic and Functional Outcomes: Analysis From the North American Clinical Trials Network for Spinal Cord Injury. Crit. Care Med. 2019, 47, e854–e862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Giannarini, G.; Kessler, T.M.; Roth, B.; Vermathen, P.; Thoeny, H.C. Functional Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Kidneys Using Blood Oxygen Level Dependent and Diffusion-Weighted Sequences. J. Urol. 2014, 192, 434–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  26. Katsumi, K.; Yamazaki, A.; Watanabe, K.; Ohashi, M.; Shoji, H. Can Prophylactic Bilateral C4/C5 Foraminotomy Prevent Postoperative C5 Palsy After Open-Door Laminoplasty? Spine 2012, 37, 748–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ichihara, D.; Okada, E.; Chiba, K.; Toyama, Y.; Fujiwara, H.; Momoshima, S.; Nishiwaki, Y.; Hashimoto, T.; Ogawa, J.; Watanabe, M.; et al. Longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging study on whiplash injury patients: Minimum 10-year follow-up. J. Orthop. Sci. 2009, 14, 602–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Marquardt, G.; Setzer, M.; Szelenyi, A.; Seifert, V.; Gerlach, R. Significance of serial S100b and NSE serum measurements in surgically treated patients with spondylotic cervical myelopathy. Acta Neurochir. 2009, 151, 1439–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Como, J.J.; Thompson, M.A.; Anderson, J.S.; Shah, R.R.; Claridge, J.A.; Yowler, C.J.; Malangoni, M.A. Is magnetic resonance imaging essential in clearing the cervical spine in obtunded patients with blunt trauma? J. Trauma 2007, 63, 544–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Summers, B.; Malhan, K.; Cassar-Pullicino, V. Low back pain on passive straight leg raising: The anterior theca as a source of pain. Spine 2005, 30, 342–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ishibe, T.; Takahashi, S. Respiratory Dysfunction in Patients with Chronic-Onset Cervical Myelopathy. Spine 2002, 27, 2234–2239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Friedman, D.; Flanders, A.; Thomas, C.; Millar, W. Vertebral artery injury after acute cervical spine trauma: Rate of occurrence as detected by MR angiography and assessment of clinical consequences. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1995, 164, 443–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  33. Tosi, L.; Righetti, C.; Terrini, G.; Zanette, G. Atypical syndromes caudal to the injury site in patients following spinal cord injury. A clinical, neurophysiological and MRI study. Spinal Cord 1993, 31, 751–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Bush, L.; Brookshire, R.; Roche, B.; Johnson, A.; Cole, F.; Karmy-Jones, R.; Long, W.; Martin, M.J. Evaluation of Cervical Spine Clearance by Computed Tomographic Scan Alone in Intoxicated Patients with Blunt Trauma. JAMA Surg. 2016, 151, 807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Arija-Blázquez, A.; Ceruelo-Abajo, S.; Díaz-Merino, M.S.; Godino-Duran, J.A.; Martínez-Dhier, L.; Martin, J.L.R.; Florensa-Vila, J. Effects of electromyostimulation on muscle and bone in men with acute traumatic spinal cord injury: A randomized clinical trial. J. Spinal Cord Med. 2013, 37, 299–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sabre, L.; Tomberg, T.; Kõrv, J.; Kepler, J.; Kepler, K.; Linnamägi, Ü.; Asser, T. Brain activation in the acute phase of traumatic spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2013, 51, 623–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kim, K.; Mishina, M.; Kokubo, R.; Nakajima, T.; Morimoto, D.; Isu, T.; Kobayashi, S.; Teramoto, A. Ketamine for acute neuropathic pain in patients with spinal cord injury. J. Clin. Neurosci. 2013, 20, 804–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kelly, J.; O’Briain, D.; Kelly, G.; Mc Cabe, J. Imaging the spine for tumour and trauma—A national audit of practice in Irish hospitals. Surgeon 2012, 10, 80–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hiersemenzel, L.-P.; Curt, A.; Dietz, V. From spinal shock to spasticity: Neuronal adaptations to a spinal cord injury. Neurology 2000, 54, 1574–1582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang-Leandro, A.; Hobert, M.K.; Alisauskaite, N.; Dziallas, P.; Rohn, K.; Stein, V.M.; Tipold, A. Spontaneous acute and chronic spinal cord injuries in paraplegic dogs: A comparative study of in vivo diffusion tensor imaging. Spinal Cord 2017, 55, 1108–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wang-Leandro, A.; Siedenburg, J.; Hobert, M.; Dziallas, P.; Rohn, K.; Stein, V.; Tipold, A. Comparison of Preoperative Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Clinical Assessment of Deep Pain Perception as Prognostic Tools for Early Recovery of Motor Function in Paraplegic Dogs with Intervertebral Disk Herniations. J. Veter Intern. Med. 2017, 31, 842–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dickomeit, M.; Jaggy, A.; Forterre, F.; Gorgas, D.; Lang, J.; Spreng, D. Incidence of spinal compressive lesions in chondrodystrophic dogs with abnormal recovery after hemilaminectomy for treatment of thoracolumbar disc disease: A prospective magnetic resonance imaging study. Vet. Surg. 2010, 39, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nout, Y.S.; Mihai, G.; Tovar, C.A.; Schmalbrock, P.; Bresnahan, J.C.; Beattie, M.S. Hypertonic saline attenuates cord swelling and edema in experimental spinal cord injury: A study utilizing magnetic resonance imaging. Crit. Care Med. 2009, 37, 2160–2166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Liu, H.M.; Dong, C.; Zhang, Y.Z.; Tian, Y.Y.; Chen, H.X.; Zhang, S.; Li, N.; Gu, P. Clinical and imaging features of spinal cord type of neuro Behçet disease: A case report and systematic review. Medicine 2017, 96, e7958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Takahata, S.; Shirado, O.; Minami, A.; Oda, H. Quadriparesis due to acute collapse of a seemingly stabilized C5/6 segment in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis—A case report. Orthopedics 2008, 31, 401. [Google Scholar]
  46. Tolonen, A.; Turkka, J.; Salonen, O.; Ahoniemi, E.; Alaranta, H. Traumatic brain injury is under-diagnosed in patients with spinal cord injury. Acta Derm. Venereol. 2007, 39, 622–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hadjipavlou, A.; Tosounidis, T.; Gaitanis, I.; Kakavelakis, K.; Katonis, P. Balloon kyphoplasty as a single or as an adjunct procedure for the management of symptomatic vertebral haemangiomas. J. Bone Jt. Surgery. Br. Vol. 2007, 89, 495–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Awad, B.I.; Carmody, M.A.; Lubelski, D.; El Hawi, M.; Claridge, J.A.; Como, J.J.; Mroz, T.E.; Moore, T.A.; Steinmetz, M.P. Adjacent Level Ligamentous Injury Associated with Traumatic Cervical Spine Fractures: Indications for Imaging and Implications for Treatment. World Neurosurg. 2015, 84, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. McGivern, U.; Drinkwater, K.; Clarke, J.; Locke, I. A Royal College of Radiologists National Audit of Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression and Implications for the Development of Acute Oncology Services. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 26, 453–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Santos, J.M.G.; Blanquer, M.; del Río, S.T.; Iniesta, F.; Espuch, J.G.; Pérez-Espejo, M.Á.; Martínez, S.; Moraleda, J.M. Acute and chronic MRI changes in the spine and spinal cord after surgical stem cell grafting in patients with definite amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: Post-infusion injuries are unrelated with clinical impairment. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2013, 31, 1298–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lamothe, G.; Müller, F.; Vital, J.-M.; Goossens, D.; Barat, M. Evolution of spinal cord injuries due to cervical canal stenosis without radiographic evidence of trauma (SCIWORET): A prospective study. Ann. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2011, 54, 213–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. DeVivo, M.J.; Kartus, P.L.; Rutt, R.D.; Stover, S.L.; Fine, P.R. The Influence of Age at Time of Spinal Cord Injury on Rehabilitation Outcome. Arch. Neurol. 1990, 47, 687–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kaminski, L.; Cordemans, V.; Cernat, E.; M’Bra, K.I.; Mac-Thiong, J.-M. Functional Outcome Prediction after Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury Based on Acute Clinical Factors. J. Neurotrauma 2017, 34, 2027–2033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Alizadeh, A.; Dyck, S.M.; Karimi-Abdolrezaee, S. Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: An Overview of Pathophysiology, Models and Acute Injury Mechanisms. Front. Neurol. 2019, 10, 282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Pfyffer, D.; Vallotton, K.; Curt, A.; Freund, P. Tissue bridges predict neuropathic pain emergence after spinal cord injury. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2020, 91, 1111–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Developing a Prediction Model for 7-Year and 10-Year All-Cause Mortality Risk in Type 2 Diabetes Using a Hospital-Based Prospective Cohort Study
Previous
Clinical Analysis of the Diagnostic Accuracy and Time of Execution of a Transillumination Caries Detection Method Compared to Bitewing Radiographs
Next