The debate over the effects of the timing of surgical spinal decompression after traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) has remained unresolved for over a century. The aim of the current study was to perform a systematic review and quality-adjusted meta-analysis of studies evaluating the effects of the timing of spinal surgery after tSCI. Studies were searched for through the MEDLINE® database (1966 to August 2012) and a 15-item, tailored scoring system was used for assessing the included studies' susceptibility to bias. Random effects and quality effects meta-analyses were performed. Models were tested for robustness using one way and criterion-based sensitivity analysis and funnel plots. Results are presented as weighted mean differences (WMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 18 studies were analyzed. Heterogeneity was evident among the studies included. Quality effects models showed that – when compared with “late” surgery – “early” spinal surgery was significantly associated with a higher total motor score improvement (WMD: 5.94 points, 95% CI:0.74,11.15) in seven studies, neurological improvement rate (OR: 2.23, 95% CI:1.35,3.67) in six studies, and shorter length of hospital stay (WMD: −9.98 days, 95% CI:−13.10,−6.85) in six studies. However, one way and criterion-based sensitivity analyses demonstrated a profound lack of robustness among pooled estimates. Funnel plots showed significant proof of publication bias. In conclusion, despite the fact that “early” spinal surgery was significantly associated with improved neurological and length of stay outcomes, the evidence supporting “early” spinal surgery after tSCI lacks robustness as a result of different sources of heterogeneity within and between original studies. Where the conduct of a surgical, randomized controlled trial seems to be an unfeasible undertaking in acute tSCI, methodological safeguards require the utmost attention in future cohort studies. (Prospero registration number: PROSPERO CRD42012003182. See also http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/NIHR_PROSPERO/)
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BurrellH.L.1905. Fracture of the spine. A summary of all the cases (244) which were treated at the Boston City Hospital from 1864 to 1905. Ann. Surg., 42:481–506.
2.
CarlsonS.L., ParrishM.E., SpringerJ.E., DotyK., DossettL.1998. Acute inflammatory response in spinal cord following impact injury. Exp. Neurol., 151:77–88.
3.
DimarJ.R.2nd, GlassmanS.D., RaqueG.H., ZhangY.P., ShieldsC.B.1999. The influence of spinal canal narrowing and timing of decompression on neurologic recovery after spinal cord contusion in a rat model. Spine, 24:1623–1633.
4.
RabinowitzR.S., EckJ.C., HarperC.M.Jr., LarsonD.R., JimenezM.A., ParisiJ.E., FriedmanJ.A., YaszemskiM.J., CurrierB.L.2008. Urgent surgical decompression compared to methylprednisolone for the treatment of acute spinal cord injury: a randomized prospective study in beagle dogs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 33:2260–2268.
5.
BallJ.R., SekhonL.H.2006. Timing of decompression and fixation after spinal cord injury—when is surgery optimal? Crit. Care Resusc., 8:56–63.
6.
KishanS., VivesM.J., ReiterM.F.2005. Timing of surgery following spinal cord injury. J. Spinal Cord Med., 28:11–19.
7.
SchinkelC., AnastasiadisA.P.2008. The timing of spinal stabilization in polytrauma and in patients with spinal cord injury. Curr. Opin. Crit. Care, 14:685–689.
8.
FehlingsM.G., PerrinR.G.2006. The timing of surgical intervention in the treatment of spinal cord injury: a systematic review of recent clinical evidence. Spine, 31:S28–36.
9.
FurlanJ.C., NoonanV., CadotteD.W., FehlingsM.G.2011. Timing of decompressive surgery of spinal cord after traumatic spinal cord injury: an evidence-based examination of pre-clinical and clinical studies. J. Neurotrauma, 28:1371–1399.
10.
La RosaG., ContiA., CardaliS., CacciolaF., TomaselloF.2004. Does early decompression improve neurological outcome of spinal cord injured patients? Appraisal of the literature using a meta-analytical approach. Spinal Cord, 42:503–512.
11.
LemeshowA.R., BlumR.E., BerlinJ.A., StotoM.A., ColditzG.A.2005. Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies. J. Clin. Epidemiol., 58:867–873.
12.
BoutronI., MoherD., AltmanD.G., SchulzK.F., RavaudP.2008. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann. Intern. Med., 148:295–309.
13.
van TulderM.W., AssendelftW.J., KoesB.W., BouterL.M.1997. Method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group for Spinal Disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 22:2323–2330.
14.
von ElmE., AltmanD.G., EggerM., PocockS.J., GotzscheP.C., VandenbrouckeJ.P.2007. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ, 335:806–808.
15.
Huwiler–MuntenerK., JuniP., JunkerC., EggerM.2002. Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. JAMA, 287:2801–2804.
16.
JuniP., AltmanD.G., EggerM.2001. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ, 323:42–46.
17.
American Spinal Injury Association (Revised 2000). International Standards for Neurological Classification 0f Spinal Cord Injury. American Spinal Injury Association: Chicago.
18.
KirshblumS.C., BurnsS.P., Biering–SorensenF., DonovanW., GravesD.E., JhaA., JohansenM., JonesL., KrassioukovA., MulcaheyM.J., Schmidt–ReadM., WaringW.2011. International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury. J. Spinal Cord Med., 34:535–546.
19.
FrankelH.L., HancockD.O., HyslopG., MelzakJ., MichaelisL.S., UngarG.H., VernonJ.D., WalshJ.J.1969. The value of postural reduction in the initial management of closed injuries of the spine with paraplegia and tetraplegia. I. Paraplegia, 7:179–192.
20.
DoiS.A., ThalibL.2008. A quality-effects model for meta-analysis. Epidemiology, 19:94–100.
21.
DoiS.A., ThalibL.2009. An alternative quality adjustor for the quality effects model for meta-analysis. Epidemiology, 20:314.
22.
Al KhalafM.M., ThalibL., DoiS.A.2011. Combining heterogenous studies using the random-effects model is a mistake and leads to inconclusive meta-analyses. J. Clin. Epidemiol., 64:119–123.
23.
DoiS.A., BarendregtJ.J., MozurkewichE.L.2012. Meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials: an empirical example. Contemp. Clin. Trials, 32:288–298.
24.
DoiS.A., BarendregtJ.J., OnitiloA.A.2013. Methods for the bias adjustment of meta-analyses of published observational studies. J. Eval. Clin. Pract., 19:653–657.
25.
SterneJ.A., EggerM., SmithG.D.2001. Systematic reviews in health care: Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ, 323:101–105.
26.
LiberatiA., AltmanD.G., TetzlaffJ., MulrowC., GotzscheP.C., IoannidisJ.P., ClarkeM., DevereauxP.J., KleijnenJ., MoherD.2009. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 339:b2700.
27.
EggerM., Davey SmithG., SchneiderM., MinderC.1997. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315:629–634.
28.
MoherD., LiberatiA., TetzlaffJ., AltmanD.G.2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ, 339:b2535.
29.
AndersonD.G., SayadipourA., LimthongkulW., MartinN.D., VaccaroA., HarropJ.S.2012. Traumatic central cord syndrome: neurologic recovery after surgical management. Am. J. Orthop. (Belle Mead NJ), 41:E104–108.
30.
CampagnoloD.I., EsquieresR.E., KopaczK.J.1997. Effect of timing of stabilization on length of stay and medical complications following spinal cord injury. J. Spinal Cord. Med, 20:331–334.
31.
CengizS.L., KalkanE., BayirA., IlikK., BaseferA.2008. Timing of thoracolomber spine stabilization in trauma patients; impact on neurological outcome and clinical course. A real prospective (rct) randomized controlled study. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg., 128:959–966.
32.
ChenL., YangH., YangT., XuY., BaoZ., TangT. 2009. Effectiveness of surgical treatment for traumatic central cord syndrome. J. Neurosurg. Spine, 10:3–8.
33.
ClohisyJ.C., AkbarniaB.A., BucholzR.D., BurkusJ.K., BackerR.J.1992. Neurologic recovery associated with anterior decompression of spine fractures at the thoracolumbar junction (T12-L1)Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 17:S325–330.
34.
CroceM.A., BeeT.K., PritchardE., MillerP.R., FabianT.C.2001. Does optimal timing for spine fracture fixation exist? Ann. Surg., 233:851–858.
35.
DuhMS., ShepardM.J., WilbergerJ.E., BrackenM.B.1994. The effectiveness of surgery on the treatment of acute spinal cord injury and its relation to pharmacological treatment. Neurosurgery, 35:240–249.
36.
FehlingsM.G., VaccaroA., WilsonJ.R., SinghA.D.W.C., HarropJ.S., AarabiB., ShaffreyC., DvorakM., FisherC., ArnoldP., MassicotteE.M., LewisS., RampersaudR.2012. Early versus delayed decompression for traumatic cervical spinal cord injury: results of the Surgical Timing in Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study (STASCIS)PLoS One, 7:e32037.
37.
GuestJ., ElerakyM.A., ApostolidesP.J., DickmanC.A., SonntagV.K.2002. Traumatic central cord syndrome: results of surgical management. J. Neurosurg., 97:25–32.
38.
KerwinA.J., FrykbergE.R., SchincoM.A., GriffenM.M., MurphyT., TepasJ.J.2005. The effect of early spine fixation on non-neurologic outcome. J. Trauma, 58:15–21.
39.
LeviL., WolfA., RigamontiD., RaghebJ., MirvisS., RobinsonW.L.1991. Anterior decompression in cervical spine trauma: does the timing of surgery affect the outcome?Neurosurgery, 29:216–222.
40.
McAfeeP.C., BohlmanH.H., YuanH.A.1985. Anterior decompression of traumatic thoracolumbar fractures with incomplete neurological deficit using a retroperitoneal approach. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., 67:89–104.
41.
McKinleyW., MeadeM.A., KirshblumS., BarnardB.2004. Outcomes of early surgical management versus late or no surgical intervention after acute spinal cord injury. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 85:1818–1825.
42.
MirzaS.K., KrengelW.F.3rd, ChapmanJ.R., AndersonP.A., BaileyJ.C., GradyM.S., YuanH.A.1999. Early versus delayed surgery for acute cervical spinal cord injury. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res., 359:104–114.
43.
NewtonD., EnglandM., DollH., GardnerB.P.2011. The case for early treatment of dislocations of the cervical spine with cord involvement sustained playing rugby. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br., 93:1646–1652.
44.
PetitjeanM.E., MousselardH., PointillartV., LassieP., SenegasJ., DabadieP.1995. Thoracic spinal trauma and associated injuries: should early spinal decompression be considered? J. Trauma, 39:368–372.
45.
PollardM.E., AppleD.F.2003. Factors associated with improved neurologic outcomes in patients with incomplete tetraplegia. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 28:33–39.
46.
SapkasG.S., PapadakisS.A.2007. Neurological outcome following early versus delayed lower cervical spine surgery. J. Orthop. Surg. (Hong Kong), 15:183–186.
47.
StevensE.A., MarshR., WilsonJ.A., SweaseyT.A., BranchC.L.Jr., PowersA.K.2010. A review of surgical intervention in the setting of traumatic central cord syndrome. Spine J, 10:874–880.
48.
VaccaroA.R., DaughertyR.J., SheehanT.P., DanteS.J., CotlerJ.M., BalderstonR.A., HerbisonG.J., NorthrupB.E.1997. Neurologic outcome of early versus late surgery for cervical spinal cord injury. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 22:2609–2613.
49.
WibergJ., HaugeH.N.1988. Neurological outcome after surgery for thoracic and lumbar spine injuries. Acta Neurochir. (Wien), 91:106–112.
50.
WilsonJ.R., SinghA., CravenC., VerrierM.C., DrewB., AhnH., FordM., FehlingsM.G.2012. Early versus late surgery for traumatic spinal cord injury: the results of a prospective Canadian cohort study. Spinal Cord, 50:840–843.
51.
KeithR.A., GrangerC.V., HamiltonB.B., SherwinF.S.1987. The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. Adv. Clin. Rehabil., 1:6–18.
52.
FreedmanB.1987. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N. Engl. J. Med., 317:141–145.
53.
FehlingsM.G., RabinD., SearsW., CadotteD.W., AarabiB.2010. Current practice in the timing of surgical intervention in spinal cord injury. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 35:S166–173.
54.
van MiddendorpJ.J., BarbagalloG., SchuetzM., HosmanA.J.2012. Design and rationale of a Prospective, Observational European Multicenter study on the efficacy of acute surgical decompression after traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: the SCI-POEM study. Spinal Cord, 50:686–694.
55.
TuszynskiM.H., SteevesJ.D., FawcettJ.W., LammertseD., KalichmanM., RaskC., CurtA., DitunnoJ.F., FehlingsM.G., GuestJ.D., EllawayP.H., KleitmanN., BartlettP.F., BlightA.R., DietzV., DobkinB.H., GrossmanR., PrivatA.2007. Guidelines for the conduct of clinical trials for spinal cord injury as developed by the ICCP Panel: clinical trial inclusion/exclusion criteria and ethics. Spinal Cord, 45:222–231.
56.
FurlanJ.C., KattailD., FehlingsM.G.2009. The impact of co-morbidities on age-related differences in mortality after acute traumatic spinal cord injury. J. Neurotrauma, 26:1361–1367.
57.
PutzC., SchuldC., AkbarM., GrieserT., WiedenhoferB., FurstenbergC.H., GernerH.J., RuppR.2011. Neurological and functional recovery in multiple injured patients with paraplegia: outcome after 1 year. J. Trauma, 70:1078–1085.
58.
van MiddendorpJ.J., HosmanA.J., DondersA.R., PouwM.H., DitunnoJ.F.Jr., CurtA., GeurtsA.C., Van de MeentH.2011. A clinical prediction rule for ambulation outcomes after traumatic spinal cord injury: a longitudinal cohort study. Lancet, 377:1004–1010.
59.
FawcettJ.W., CurtA., SteevesJ.D., ColemanW.P., TuszynskiM.H., LammertseD., BartlettP.F., BlightA.R., DietzV., DitunnoJ., DobkinB.H., HavtonL.A., EllawayP.H., FehlingsM.G., PrivatA., GrossmanR., GuestJ.D., KleitmanN., NakamuraM., GaviriaM., ShortD.2007. Guidelines for the conduct of clinical trials for spinal cord injury as developed by the ICCP panel: spontaneous recovery after spinal cord injury and statistical power needed for therapeutic clinical trials. Spinal Cord, 45:190–205.
GrimesD.A., SchulzK.F.2002. Bias and causal associations in observational research. Lancet, 359:248–252.
62.
GroenwoldR.H., HakE., HoesA.W.2009. Quantitative assessment of unobserved confounding is mandatory in nonrandomized intervention studies. J. Clin. Epidemiol., 62:22–28.
63.
D'AgostinoR.B.Jr.1998. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat. Med., 17:2265–2281.
64.
KarriV.2006. Randomised clinical trials in plastic surgery: survey of output and quality of reporting. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg., 59:787–796.
65.
BleschA., TuszynskiM.H.2009. Spinal cord injury: plasticity, regeneration and the challenge of translational drug development. Trends Neurosci., 32:41–47.
van MiddendorpJ.J., GossB., UrquhartS., AtreshS., WilliamsR.P., SchuetzM.2011. Diagnosis and prognosis of traumatic spinal cord injury. Global Spine J, 1:001–008.
68.
AkhtarA.Z., PippinJ.J., SanduskyC.B.2008. Animal models in spinal cord injury: a review. Rev. Neurosci., 19:47–60.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
