Journal of neurotrauma
-
Journal of neurotrauma · Aug 2011
ReviewA systematic review of intensive cardiopulmonary management after spinal cord injury.
Intensive cardiopulmonary management is frequently undertaken in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI), particularly due to the occurrence of neurogenic shock and ventilatory insufficiency and in an attempt to reduce secondary injury. We undertook a systematic review of the literature to examine the evidence that intensive care management improves outcome after SCI and to attempt to define key parameters for cardiopulmonary support/resuscitation. ⋯ The literature supports that, in light of the significant incidence of cardiorespiratory complications, SCI patients should be managed in a monitored special care unit. There is weak evidence supporting the maintenance of MAP >85 mmHg for a period extending up to 1 week following SCI.
-
Journal of neurotrauma · Aug 2011
ReviewThe impact of specialized centers of care for spinal cord injury on length of stay, complications, and mortality: a systematic review of the literature.
Specialized centers of care for spinal cord injury (SCI) were first established in 1944 in England. The objective of these centers is to improve care and neurological recovery of patients suffering from a spinal cord injury. An interdisciplinary group of experts composed of medical and surgical specialists treating patients with SCI formulated the following questions: (1) Is there any evidence to suggest that specialized centers of care in SCI decrease the length of patient stay? and (2) Is there evidence that specialized centers of care for SCI reduce mortality and secondary complications? A systematic review of the current evidence was performed using multiple databases to answer these two specific questions. ⋯ Recommendations were then formulated based on the evidence available and were reviewed by a panel of experts using a modified Delphi approach. Two recommendations were formulated and both received complete agreement from a panel of experts. The first recommendation is "Early transfer of a patient with traumatic SCI to a specialized center of care should be done promptly to decrease overall length of stay." The second recommendation is "Early transfer of patients with traumatic SCI to an integrated multidisciplinary specialized center of care decreases overall mortality, and the number and severity of complications."
-
Journal of neurotrauma · Aug 2011
ReviewPre-hospital care management of a potential spinal cord injured patient: a systematic review of the literature and evidence-based guidelines.
An interdisciplinary expert panel of medical and surgical specialists involved in the management of patients with potential spinal cord injuries (SCI) was assembled. Four key questions were created that were of significant interest. ⋯ Guidelines were then created related to the questions by a national Canadian expert panel using the Delphi method for reviewing the evidence-based guidelines about each question. Recommendations about the key questions included: the pre-hospital immobilization of patients using a cervical collar, head immobilization, and a spinal board; utilization of padded boards or inflatable bean bag boards to reduce pressure; transfer of patients off of spine boards as soon as feasible, including transfer of patients off spinal boards while awaiting transfer from one hospital institution to another hospital center for definitive care; inclusion of manual in-line cervical spine traction for airway management in patients requiring intubation in the pre-hospital setting; transport of patients with acute traumatic SCI to the definitive hospital center for care within 24 h of injury; and training of emergency medical personnel in the pre-hospital setting to apply criteria to clear patients of cervical spinal injuries, and immobilize patients suspected of having cervical spinal injury.
-
Journal of neurotrauma · Aug 2011
ReviewA systematic review of cellular transplantation therapies for spinal cord injury.
Cell transplantation therapies have become a major focus in pre-clinical research as a promising strategy for the treatment of spinal cord injury (SCI). In this article, we systematically review the available pre-clinical literature on the most commonly used cell types in order to assess the body of evidence that may support their translation to human SCI patients. These cell types include Schwann cells, olfactory ensheathing glial cells, embryonic and adult neural stem/progenitor cells, fate-restricted neural/glial precursor cells, and bone-marrow stromal cells. ⋯ The systematic review makes it very apparent that cells derived from rodent sources have been the most extensively studied, while only 19 studies reported the transplantation of human cells, nine of which utilized bone-marrow stromal cells. Similarly, the vast majority of studies have been conducted in rodent models of injury, and few studies have investigated cell transplantation in larger mammals or primates. With respect to the timing of intervention, nearly all of the studies reviewed were conducted with transplantations occurring subacutely and acutely, while chronic treatments were rare and often failed to yield functional benefits.
-
Although research in the field of spinal cord injury (SCI) is a relatively new endeavor, a remarkable number of papers focused on this subspecialty have been published in a broad variety of journals over the last two decades. A multidisciplinary group of experts, including clinical epidemiologists, neurosurgical and orthopedic spine surgeons, basic scientists, rehabilitation specialists, intensivists, and allied health professionals (nursing and physical therapy) was assembled through the Spinal Cord Injury Solutions Network to summarize the existing literature focusing on 12 key topics related to acute traumatic SCI, which have not been recently reviewed. The objective was to develop evidence-based recommendations to help translate current science into clinical practice and to identify new directions for research. ⋯ Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer or consensus-based discussion. Based on the evidence compiled, answers to the targeted questions were formulated and recommendations generated by consensus-based discussion and anonymized voting using Delphi methodology. A level of consensus of 80% or higher was considered to represent strong agreement.