Sarita Magu1, Deepak Singh2, Rohtas Kanwar Yadav1, Manju Bala3. 1. Deparment of Radiodiagnosis, Pandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS), Rohtak, India. 2. Department of Radiodiagnosis, Shree Guru Gobind Singh Tricentenary Medical College, Gurgaon, India. 3. Department of Anaesthesiology, Pandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS), Rohtak, India.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study. PURPOSE: To compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings with clinical profile and neurological status of the patient and to correlate the MRI findings with neurological recovery of the patients and predict the outcome. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Previous studies have reported poor neurological recovery in patients with cord hemorrhage, as compared to cord edema in spine injury patients. High canal compromise, cord compression along with higher extent of cord injury also carries poor prognostic value. METHODS: Neurological status of patients was assessed at the time of admission and discharge in as accordance with the American Spine Injury Association (ASIA) impairment scale. Mean stay in hospital was 14.11±5.74 days. Neurological status at admission and neurological recovery at discharge was compared with various qualitative cord findings and quantitative parameters on MRI. In 27 patients, long-term follow-up was done at mean time of 285.9±43.94 days comparing same parameters. RESULTS: Cord edema and normal cord was associated with favorable neurological outcome. Cord contusion showed lesser neurological recovery, as compared to cord edema. Cord hemorrhage was associated with worst neurological status at admission and poor neurological recovery. Mean canal compromise (MCC), mean spinal cord compression (MSCC) and lesion length values were higher in patients presenting with ASIA A impairment scale injury and showed decreasing trends towards ASIA E impairment scale injury. Patients showing neurological recovery had lower mean MCC, MSCC, and lesion length, as compared to patients showing no neurological recovery (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Cord hemorrhage, higher MCC, MSCC, and lesion length values have poor prognostic value in spine injury patients.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study. PURPOSE: To compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings with clinical profile and neurological status of the patient and to correlate the MRI findings with neurological recovery of the patients and predict the outcome. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Previous studies have reported poor neurological recovery in patients with cord hemorrhage, as compared to cord edema in spine injurypatients. High canal compromise, cord compression along with higher extent of cord injury also carries poor prognostic value. METHODS: Neurological status of patients was assessed at the time of admission and discharge in as accordance with the American Spine Injury Association (ASIA) impairment scale. Mean stay in hospital was 14.11±5.74 days. Neurological status at admission and neurological recovery at discharge was compared with various qualitative cord findings and quantitative parameters on MRI. In 27 patients, long-term follow-up was done at mean time of 285.9±43.94 days comparing same parameters. RESULTS:Cord edema and normal cord was associated with favorable neurological outcome. Cord contusion showed lesser neurological recovery, as compared to cord edema. Cord hemorrhage was associated with worst neurological status at admission and poor neurological recovery. Mean canal compromise (MCC), mean spinal cord compression (MSCC) and lesion length values were higher in patients presenting with ASIA A impairment scale injury and showed decreasing trends towards ASIA E impairment scale injury. Patients showing neurological recovery had lower mean MCC, MSCC, and lesion length, as compared to patients showing no neurological recovery (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Cord hemorrhage, higher MCC, MSCC, and lesion length values have poor prognostic value in spine injurypatients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cord contusion; Cord hemorrhage; Mean canal compromise; Mean spinal cord compression; Spine injuries
Authors: Michael G Fehlings; Julio C Furlan; Eric M Massicotte; Paul Arnold; Bizhan Aarabi; James Harrop; D Greg Anderson; Christopher M Bono; Marcel Dvorak; Charles Fisher; John France; Rune Hedlund; Ignacio Madrazo; Russ Nockels; Raja Rampersaud; Glenn Rechtine; Alexander R Vaccaro Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2006-07-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Manof K Tewari; Difender S Gifti; Paramjit Singh; Virender K Khosla; Suresh N Mathuriya; Sunil K Gupta; Ashis Pathak Journal: Surg Neurol Date: 2005-03
Authors: A C Smith; K A Weber; T B Parrish; T G Hornby; V M Tysseling; J G McPherson; M Wasielewski; J M Elliott Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: David P Cummins; Jordan R Connor; Katherine A Heller; Joshua S Hubert; Megan J Kates; Katarina R Wisniewski; Jeffrey C Berliner; Denise R O'Dell; James M Elliott; Kenneth A Weber; Andrew C Smith Journal: Spinal Cord Ser Cases Date: 2019-02-18