• William C Hanigan and Chris Sloffer.
• Department of Neurosurgery, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Peoria, Illinois 61656, USA. joanna.gass@osfhealthcare.org
• Neurosurg Focus. 2004 Jan 15;16(1):E4.

AbstractDuring the first half of the 19th century, warfare did not provide a background for a systematic analysis of spinal cord injury (SCI). Medical officers participating in the Peninsular and Crimean Wars emphasized the dismal prognosis of this injury, although authors of sketchy civil reports persuaded a few surgeons to operate on closed fractures. The American Medical and Surgical History of the War of the Rebellion was the first text to provide summary of results in 642 cases of gunshot wounds of the spine. The low incidence of this injury (0.26%) and the high mortality rate (55%) discouraged the use of surgery in these cases. Improvements in diagnoses and the introduction of x-ray studies in the latter half of the century enabled Sir G. H. Makins, during the Boer War, to recommend delayed intervention to remove bone or bullet fragments in incomplete injuries. The civil experiences of Elsberg and Frazier in the early 20th century promoted a meticulous approach to treatments, whereas efficient transport of injured soldiers during World War I increased the numbers of survivors. Open large wounds or cerebrospinal fluid leakage, signs of cord compression in recovering patients, delayed clinical deterioration, or intractable pain required surgical exploration. Wartime recommendations for urological and skin care prevented sepsis, and burgeoning pension systems provided specialized longterm rehabilitation. By the Armistice, the effective surgical treatment and postoperative care that had developed through decades of interaction between civil and military medicine helped reduce incidences of morbidity and dispel the hopelessness surrounding the combatant with an SCI.

36 keywords...

hide…