The Timing of Surgical Intervention in the Treatment of Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review of Recent Clinical Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Evidence-based literature review. OBJECTIVE: To provide updated evidence-based recommendations regarding spinal cord decompression in patients with acute spinal cord injury (SCI). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: It is controversial whether early decompression following SCI conveys a benefit in neurologic outcome. METHODS: MEDLINE search of experimental and clinical studies showing the effect of decompression on neurologic outcome following SCI. We focused on articles published within the last 10 years, with a particular emphasis on research conducted within the past 5 years. RESULTS: A total of 66 articles were retrieved. Animal studies consistently show that neurologic recovery is enhanced by early decompression. There was 1 randomized controlled trial that showed no benefit to early (<72 hours) decompression. Several recent prospective series suggest that early decompression (<72 hours) can be performed safely and may improve neurologic outcomes. A recent systematic review showed that early decompression (<24 hours) resulted in statistically better outcomes compared to both delayed decompression and conservative treatment. CONCLUSIONS: There are currently no standards regarding the role and timing of decompression in acute SCI. We recommend urgent decompression of bilateral locked facets in a patient with incomplete tetraplegia or in a patient with SCI with neurologic deterioration. Urgent decompression in acute cervical SCI remains a reasonable practice option and can be performed safely. There is emerging evidence that surgery within 24 hours may reduce length of intensive care unit stay and reduce post-injury medical complications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".