• A Curt.
• Spinal Cord Injury Center, University of Zurich, University Hospital Balgrist, and the Rehabilitation Initiative and Technology Zurich (RITZ), Zürich, Switzerland. Armin.Curt@Balgrist.ch
• Spinal Cord. 2012 May 1;50(5):352-7.

BackgroundAlthough the emphasis in clinical spinal cord injury (SCI) research has been directed towards the evaluation of clinical assessments (standards in neurological examination) and the appreciation of outcome measures (that is, extent and pattern of clinical recovery from SCI), the underlying neurological mechanisms for recovery from SCI are not well documented in humans. However, to improve the translational research, a meaningful preclinical-clinical dialogue is required, with an appreciation for both fundamental neural mechanisms and what makes human SCI unique. This holds true both for potential interventions in rehabilitation and novel drug or cell-based treatment approaches in acute SCI.ObjectivesThe gap in translational research that needs to be approached from both ends not only includes the appreciation of principal neural mechanisms (repair, sprouting, plasticity) and their assumed impact onto outcomes (even though humans and non primate animals may rely on slightly different supraspinal control for some movements), but also includes an understanding of the spatial (location and size of lesion) and temporal (timelines of damage and recovery) factors in spinal cord damage that can vary considerably between the different species being studied.ConclusionThe preclinical-clinical dialogue should be encouraged as a venue to improve the appreciation of discoveries in basic research, and to power valid discoveries towards a meaningful translation into advanced treatments downstream. Similarly, the upstream identification of appropriate clinical targets that take into account clinical constraints depends on reliable and advanced clinical information being provided to preclinical investigators.

11 keywords...

hide…