| Literature DB >> 24659962 |
Giorgio Scivoletto1, Federica Tamburella1, Letizia Laurenza2, Monica Torre2, Marco Molinari1.
Abstract
The recovery of walking function is considered of extreme relevance both by patients and physicians. Consequently, in the recent years, recovery of locomotion become a major objective of new pharmacological and rehabilitative interventions. In the last decade, several pharmacological treatment and rehabilitative approaches have been initiated to enhance locomotion capacity of SCI patients. Basic science advances in regeneration of the central nervous system hold promise of further neurological and functional recovery to be studied in clinical trials. Therefore, a precise knowledge of the natural course of walking recovery after SCI and of the factors affecting the prognosis for recovery has become mandatory. In the present work we reviewed the prognostic factors for walking recovery, with particular attention paid to the clinical ones (neurological examination at admission, age, etiology gender, time course of recovery). The prognostic value of some instrumental examinations has also been reviewed. Based on these factors we suggest that a reliable prognosis for walking recovery is possible. Instrumental examinations, in particular evoked potentials could be useful to improve the prognosis.Entities:
Keywords: prognostic factors; spinal cord injury; walking recovery
Year: 2014 PMID: 24659962 PMCID: PMC3952432 DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00141
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Hum Neurosci ISSN: 1662-5161 Impact factor: 3.169
Figure 1Scoring sheet for the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury. American Spinal Injury Association: International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury, revised 2013; Atlanta, GA. Reprinted 2013.
Figure 2Scoring sheet for the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury. American Spinal Injury Association: International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury, revised 2013; Atlanta, GA. Reprinted 2013.
Prediction of recovery according to AIS impairment scale.
| A | 84% | 8% | 5% | 3% |
| B | 10% | 30% | 29% | 31% |
| C | 2% | 2% | 25% | 67% |
| D | 2% | 1% | 2% | 85% |
| A | 95% | 0 | 2,5% | 2,5% |
| B | 0 | 53% | 21% | 26% |
| C | 1% | 0 | 45% | 54% |
| D | 2% | 0 | 0 | 96% |
Prediction of functional walking according to AIS impairment and other features.
| AIS A/cervical lesion | 0% (Waters et al., |
| 0% (Ditunno et al., | |
| AIS A/thoracic and lumbar lesions | 5% (Waters et al., |
| 8.5% (Ditunno et al., | |
| AIS B (only light touch preservation) | 0% (Waters et al., |
| 11% (Crozier et al., | |
| 33% (Waters et al., | |
| AIS B (light touch + pin prick preservation) | 89% (Crozier et al., |
| 66% (Foo et al., | |
| 75% (Katoh and el Masry, | |
| AIS C < 50 years | 91% (Burns et al., |
| 71% (Scivoletto et al., | |
| AIS C > 50 years | 42% (Burns et al., |
| 25% (Scivoletto et al., | |
| AIS D < 50 years | 100% (Burns et al., |
| 100% (Scivoletto et al., | |
| AIS D > 50 years | 100% (Burns et al., |
| 80% (Scivoletto et al., |
Prognostic value of SSEPs and MEPs.
| Normal | 83 | 17 | 0 | 0 |
| Present, altered | 10 | 60 | 10 | 20 |
| Absent | 0 | 7 | 13 | 80 |
| Normal | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Absent | 11 | 0 | 78 | |
MRI and lesion severity.
| Marciello et al., | Hemorrage = low upper extremity and no lower extremity recovery |
| Flanders et al., | Hemorrage = decreased motor power, lower motor recovery rate, and fewer muscles with useful function |
| Ramón et al., | Hemorrage = complete injury |
| Boldin et al., | |
| Flanders et al., | Small hemorrhage = higher recovery rates |
| Schaefer et al., | |
| Bondurant et al., | No relationship between hemorrhage size and recovery |
| Flanders et al., | |
| Flanders et al., | Edema = prognosis of recovery to functional levels (D/E) |
| Ramón et al., | Edema = association with incomplete syndromes |
| Flanders et al., | Degree of edema is inversely proportional to initial impairment and future recovery |
| Flanders et al., | |
| Ramón et al., | |
| Boldin et al., | Multiple levels involvement = poorer prognosis and greater chance of complete lesions |
| Flanders et al., | Involvement of only one to three segments = improved prognosis |