File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Which treatment provides the best neurological outcomes in acute spinal cord injury?

TitleWhich treatment provides the best neurological outcomes in acute spinal cord injury?
Authors
Issue Date1-Mar-2023
PublisherBritish Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
Citation
The Bone & Joint Journal, 2023, v. 105-B, n. 4, p. 347-355 How to Cite?
Abstract

Initial treatment of traumatic spinal cord injury remains as controversial in 2023 as it was in the early 19th century, when Sir Astley Cooper and Sir Charles Bell debated the merits or otherwise of surgery to relieve cord compression. There has been a lack of high-class evidence for early surgery, despite which expeditious intervention has become the surgical norm. This evidence deficit has been progressively addressed in the last decade and more modern statistical methods have been used to clarify some of the issues, which is demonstrated by the results of the SCI-POEM trial. However, there has never been a properly conducted trial of surgery versus active conservative care. As a result, it is still not known whether early surgery or active physiological management of the unstable injured spinal cord offers the better chance for recovery. Surgeons who care for patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries in the acute setting should be aware of the arguments on all sides of the debate, a summary of which this annotation presents.


Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/328414
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 4.9
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 2.280

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBirch, NC-
dc.contributor.authorCheung, JPY-
dc.contributor.authorTakenaka, S-
dc.contributor.authorEl Masri, WS-
dc.date.accessioned2023-06-28T04:44:41Z-
dc.date.available2023-06-28T04:44:41Z-
dc.date.issued2023-03-01-
dc.identifier.citationThe Bone & Joint Journal, 2023, v. 105-B, n. 4, p. 347-355-
dc.identifier.issn2049-4394-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/328414-
dc.description.abstract<p> Initial treatment of traumatic spinal cord injury remains as controversial in 2023 as it was in the early 19th century, when Sir Astley Cooper and Sir Charles Bell debated the merits or otherwise of surgery to relieve cord compression. There has been a lack of high-class evidence for early surgery, despite which expeditious intervention has become the surgical norm. This evidence deficit has been progressively addressed in the last decade and more modern statistical methods have been used to clarify some of the issues, which is demonstrated by the results of the SCI-POEM trial. However, there has never been a properly conducted trial of surgery versus active conservative care. As a result, it is still not known whether early surgery or active physiological management of the unstable injured spinal cord offers the better chance for recovery. Surgeons who care for patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries in the acute setting should be aware of the arguments on all sides of the debate, a summary of which this annotation presents.<br></p>-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherBritish Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery-
dc.relation.ispartofThe Bone & Joint Journal-
dc.titleWhich treatment provides the best neurological outcomes in acute spinal cord injury?-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.doi10.1302/0301-620X.105B4.BJJ-2023-0111-
dc.identifier.hkuros344598-
dc.identifier.volume105-B-
dc.identifier.issue4-
dc.identifier.spage347-
dc.identifier.epage355-
dc.identifier.eissn2049-4408-
dc.identifier.issnl2049-4394-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats