Traumatic central cord syndrome: Neurological and functional outcome at 3 years

27Citations
Citations of this article
46Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Study design:Retrospective cohort analysis with prospective follow-up.Objectives: To evaluate neurological and functional recovery following central cord syndrome.Setting:Northern Ireland, population 1.8 million. Methods: Twenty-seven cords were identified in 1 year. Five managed conservatively and 22 with surgery. American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) motor scores (AMS) were calculated to assess neurological recovery. Rotterdam scores assessed functional independence at 3 years. Results: Average age was 62 years. Mechanism of injury was a fall with neck hyperextension in 81% patients. Average AMS in surgical patients improved from injury, preoperatively, postoperatively, 6 months and 3 years from 51, 81, 83, 90 to 96, respectively. Conservative patients improved from time of injury to day 10 from 57 to 86 and then fell to 84 at 6 months. By 3 years, this had recovered to 91. There was no statistical significant difference in AMS (P=0.15)/change in AMS (ΔAMS) (P=0.92) or percentage of motor deficit resolution (P=0.23) between groups at 3 years. Two patients underwent surgery within 48 h and achieved full motor recovery by 3 years, but this was not significant (P=0.2). ASIA score improvement had a positive correlation with age at injury. Patients treated with surgery had better Rotterdam scores at 3 years than those managed conservatively (P=0.05).Conclusions:This study confirms the natural history of central cord syndrome. Although it demonstrates equivocal neurological recovery for both groups, patients treated with surgery regained a greater degree of functional independence.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Stevenson, C. M., Dargan, D. P., Warnock, J., Sloan, S., Espey, R., Maguire, S., & Eames, N. (2016). Traumatic central cord syndrome: Neurological and functional outcome at 3 years. Spinal Cord, 54(11), 1010–1015. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2016.34

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free