MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086108839 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181f32a44

The Urgency of Surgical Decompression in Acute Central Cord Injuries With Spondylosis and Without Instability

2010· review· en· W2086108839 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Lenehan, Charles G. Fisher, Alexander R. Vaccaro, Michael G. Fehlings, Bizhan Aarabi, Marcel F. Dvorak

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgical decompressionDecompressionSurgeryCordDecompression sicknessSpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review, ambispective analysis of observational data. OBJECTIVE: To make recommendations as to whether or not urgent surgical decompression is ever indicated as the optimal treatment for enhancing neurologic recovery in a patient with acute central cord injury without fracture or instability. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There are currently no standards regarding the role and timing of decompression in acute traumatic central cord syndrome. In the setting of TCCS without spinal column instability, much controversy exists. METHODS: We have performed a thorough literature search based on the following question: "Is there a role for urgent (within 24 hours from injury to surgery) surgical decompression in acute central cord syndrome without fracture or instability specifically to enhance neurologic recovery?" Data including patient demographics, mechanism of injury, comorbidities, neurologic status, and surgical treatment was analyzed from a multicenter STSG observational database. Outcome measured included ASIA Motor Score, ASIA Grade, Functional Independence Measure (FIM) Score, SF-36, Sphincter Disturbance, and Ambulatory status. Measures were recorded on admission, discharge, 6 months and 1 year. RESULTS: At 12-month follow-up, early surgery resulted in a 6.31 point greater improvement in total motor score than did the late surgery group, with a P = 0.0358. At 6-month follow-up, early surgery result in higher chance of improvement in ASIA Grade than late surgery, with an odds ratio = 3.39, while at 12-month follow-up early surgery resulted in a higher chance of improvement in ASIA Grade, with an odds ratio of 2.81. Patients who were operated on within 24 hours had 7.79 U more improvement in FIM Total Score than late surgery at 6 month follow-up, with P = 0.0474. CONCLUSION: The consensus of experts following review of relevant and examination of observational dataset concluded that it is reasonable and safe to consider early surgical decompression in patients with profound neurologic deficit (ASIA = C) and persistent spinal cord compression due to developmental cervical spinal canal stenosis without fracture or instability. Those with less severe deficit (ASIA = D) can be treated with initial observation with surgery potentially at a later date depending on the extent and temporal profile of the patients neurologic recovery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.006
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.378 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations178
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207