Evaluation of the acute management of tetraplegia: Conservative versus surgical treatment

43Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

A retrospective study of 106 tetraplegic patients admitted consecutively to the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (SCVMC) between August, 1981 and September, 1983 was conducted. The average age was 28; and 20 (19%) were female. The majority sustained their spinal cord injury in a motor vehicle accident (65%) or in a diving accident (19%). Forty-nine percent (52/106) of these patients had acute surgical intervention, and 63% (33/52) of these patients had this prior to admission to SCVMC. The majority (35/52) had posterior fusion alone. Twelve patients had an anterior fusion (11 at other hospitals) and four a laminectomy alone (three carried out at other hospitals). The length of rehabilitation stay was 133 days for those having surgery, and 119 days for non-surgical cases; statistically a non-significant difference. When acute medical/surgical hospitalisation and rehabilitation days were combined, those having surgery had a significantly longer stay (197 versus 153 days), but only when surgery was done other than at SCVMC. Complications occurred in 50/106 (47%) of the patients: 50% who had surgery and 44% who were treated conservatively. The most commonest complication was respiratory (43%), including 20% who had pneumonia. Complications were no greater in those patients who underwent posterior fusion than in those who had no spinal surgery. However, other types of surgery carried a higher risk of complications by approximately 20%. Anterior fusions and laminectomies, performed almost totally at other institutions (15/17), had a higher rate of complications. © 1986, International Spinal Cord Society. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wilmot, C. B., & Hall, K. M. (1986). Evaluation of the acute management of tetraplegia: Conservative versus surgical treatment. Paraplegia, 24(3), 148–153. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.1986.19

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