• Richard J Bransford, Jens R Chapman, Andrea C Skelly, and Ellen M VanAlstyne.
• Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, Washington 98104, USA. rbransfo@u.washington.edu
• J Neurosurg Spine. 2012 Sep 1;17(1 Suppl):52-64.

ObjectThe purpose of this paper was to systematically review and critically appraise the evidence for whether there are differences in outcomes or recovery after thoracic spinal cord injuries (SCIs) based on the spinal level, the timing of intervention, or cause of SCI.MethodsSystematic searches were conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE through January 5, 2012. From 486 articles identified, 10 included data on the population of interest. Included studies were assigned a level of evidence (LOE) rating based on study quality, and an overall strength of evidence was assessed. To estimate the effect of injury level on patient outcomes, the relative risk and risk difference were calculated when data were available.ResultsFrom 486 citations identified, 3 registry studies and 7 retrospective cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. All were rated as being of poor quality (LOE III). Limited literature exists on the epidemiology of traumatic and nontraumatic SCI. Few studies evaluated outcomes based on SCI level within the thoracic spine. Pulmonary complications and thromboembolic events were less common in persons with lower thoracic SCI (T7-12) than in those with higher thoracic SCI (T1-6) in 2 large studies, but no differences were found in functional outcomes in 4 smaller studies. Patients undergoing earlier surgery (< 72 hours) may have fewer ventilator, ICU, and hospital days than those undergoing later surgery. One small study of SCI during repair of aortic aneurysm compared with traumatic SCI reported similar outcomes for both groups. There are substantial deficiencies in the scientific literature on thoracic SCI in regard to assessment, outcomes ratings, and effectiveness of therapy.ConclusionsThe overall strength of evidence for all outcomes reported is low. Definitive conclusions should not be drawn regarding the prognosis for outcome and recovery after thoracic SCI. From a physiological standpoint, additional methodologically rigorous studies that take into consideration various levels of injury in more anatomically and physiologically relevant form are needed. Use of validated, comprehensive outcomes tools are important to improve our understanding of the impact of thoracic SCI and aid in examining factors in recovery from thoracic SCI.

9 keywords...

hide…