Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background. Approximately 60% of patients suffering from acute spinal cord injury (SCI) develop pain within days to weeks after injury, which ultimately persists into chronic stages. To date, the consequences of pain after SCI have been largely examined in terms of interfering with quality of life. Objective. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of pain and pain management on neurological recovery after SCI. Methods. We analyzed clinical data in a prospective multicenter observational cohort study in patients with SCI. Using mixed effects regression techniques, total motor and sensory scores were modelled at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postinjury. Results. A total of 225 individuals were included in the study (mean age: 45.8 ± 18 years, 80% male). At 1 month postinjury, 28% of individuals with SCI reported at- or below-level neuropathic pain. While pain classification showed no effect on neurological outcomes, individuals administered anticonvulsant medications at 1 month postinjury showed significant reductions in pain intensity (2 points over 1 year; P < .05) and greater recovery in total motor scores (7.3 points over 1 year; P < .05). This drug effect on motor recovery remained significant after adjustment for injury level and injury severity, pain classification, and pain intensity. Conclusion. While initial pain classification and intensity did not reveal an effect on motor recovery following acute SCI, anticonvulsants conferred a significant beneficial effect on motor outcomes. Early intervention with anticonvulsants may have effects beyond pain management and warrant further studies to evaluate the therapeutic effectiveness in human SCI.

Keywords

spinal cord injury spontaneous recovery gabapentin pregabalin NSAIDs

Introduction

Approximately 60% of patients suffering from acute spinal cord injury (SCI) develop pain within days to weeks after injury, which ultimately persists into chronic stages.^1-3 To date, the consequences of pain after SCI have been largely examined in terms of interfering with quality of life.⁴ However, preclinical studies indicate that pain and management of pain with different classes of medications may also impact neurological outcomes. More specifically, the neuromodulatory properties of pain and almost every class of pain medication have been demonstrated in animal models of CNS injury, including SCI.^5-8

The primary aim of this study was to examine the hypothesis that pain characteristics (classification and intensity), as well as pain management (medications), affect the course of neurological recovery after human SCI. This is an important line of investigation given that both pain and neurological function strongly influence quality of life among individuals with SCI.^9,10 The effects of 2 different drug classes were specifically examined: medications typically administered to manage neuropathic pain (ie, anticonvulsants), and medications more generally administered for the management of nociceptive pain (ie, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]). To address our hypothesis, neurological outcomes (sensory and motor scores from the International Standards for the Neurological Classification of SCI, ISNCSCI) and pain data from the European Multi-centre Study about SCI (EMSCI) were examined.

Methods

Data Source and Study Design: European Multi-centre Study about Spinal Cord Injury

This was a longitudinal prospective (observational) cohort study of individuals in the EMSCI. Comprised of 19 participating trauma and rehabilitation centers from across Europe, neurological and functional outcomes are comprehensively tracked in individuals with SCI at fixed time points over the first year of injury. All individuals in the EMSCI receive standards of rehabilitation care. To be included in EMSCI, individuals must have met the following criteria: the patient was capable and willing to give written informed consent, the first EMSCI assessment was possible within the first 6 weeks following injury, and the injury was a single event (traumatic or ischemic paraplegia or tetraplegia). Exclusion criteria were: other nontraumatic paraplegia or tetraplegia, dementia or severe reduction of intelligence leading to reduced capabilities of cooperation or giving consent, polyneuropathy, and relevant brain injury. Although EMSCI was designed to facilitate data collection for clinical trials, the current study does not represent the results of an experimental/clinical trial, or the secondary analysis of clinical trial data (ie, subjects are not randomized to therapies). All patients gave their written informed consent before being included in the database. This study was approved by all responsible institutional review boards.

Pain Questionnaire

Initiated in 2007, seven member centers of the EMSCI participated in the collection of pain questionnaire data. Briefly, the structured interview comprised a comprehensive assessment of pain features. Pain was classified as nociceptive or neuropathic by trained examiners based on patient description (eg, burning, stabbing, electric, or shooting), location of pain relative to neurological level of injury, aggravating and alleviating factors (eg, musculoskeletal pain associated with movement), as well as key patient signs (eg, alloydnia and hyperalgesia associated with neuropathic pain). Neuropathic pain comprised at- and below-level symptoms.¹¹ According to the International SCI Pain Classification, symptoms located diffusely 3 levels or more caudal to the neurological level of the SCI were defined as “below-level” neuropathic pain. The questionnaire was repeated for up to 3 different types of pain. For the purpose of analysis, subjects were examined according to their predominant (most intense) pain. Major pain medications, including the use of antidepressants, anticonvulsants (gabapentin, pregabalin, carbamazepine, valproic acid, and lamotrigine), NSAIDS, and opioids, were also recorded. Pain intensity was determined for the average and maximum over a 1-week period using a Numeric Rating Scale.

Outcome and Exposure Assessments

Individuals were examined at 4 fixed time points: 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postinjury. Total sensory and motor scores (maximum value = 112 and 100, respectively) were the primary outcome variables, assessed separately at each of the 4 time points, and examined according to the established ISNCSCI. Trained examiners performed the ISNCSCI and classifications were verified by computational analysis.¹² Upper extremity motor score (UEMS) and lower extremity motor score (LEMS), both of which combine to form the total motor score (each with a maximum value of 50), were also examined in a post hoc analysis (see unbiased recursive partitioning below). Three pain-related variables collected at 1 month were used as primary explanatory variables: (1) pain classification (none, neuropathic, or nociceptive), (2) pain intensity (average or maximum over the past week; scale from 0 = no pain to 10 = most pain imaginable), and (3) pain drug classification, (NSAID) and anticonvulsant use. Also from the motor and sensory scores, the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS) was determined as a measure of injury severity. A secondary analysis was performed on pain intensity (ie, where intensity was the outcome), modeling the effects of 1-month anticonvulsant use on pain intensity (ie, drug efficacy).

Statistics

For demographics and baseline characteristics, study groups were compared using t tests for continuous variables, and chi-square tests for categorical variables (or their nonparametric alternatives). To take into account the longitudinal nature of the data, to adjust for potential confounders, as well as to handle missing data, the primary analysis comprised the use of mixed effects regression models. To build the statistical models, the individual trajectories over the 4 time points were visually examined using “spaghetti” plots. Akaike information criterion and the likelihood ratio test were used to statistically compare nonnested models and nested models, respectively. As our primary interest was the rate of recovery, we examined if covariates affected the trajectory of sensory and motor recovery using formal testing of interaction terms (ie, covariate-time interactions). P < .05 was regarded as statistical significance. Bonferonni corrections were made for adjustment for multiple comparisons. R statistical software version 2.15.3 was used for all analyses.

Unbiased Recursive Partitioning

In addition to using mixed effects models to examine changes over time in the recovery of motor function, we were also interested in addressing if pain factors (ie, classification and medications) had specific effects within different cohorts. To this end, we employed “unbiased recursive partitioning” (URP)—a technique using conditional inference trees. URP is a tree-structured regression model based on sequential tests of independence between predictors and a specified clinical endpoint (ie, future outcome). More detailed information can be found elsewhere.¹³ In brief, URP divides an initial heterogeneous population into successively disjoint and more homogeneous pairs of subgroups with regard to the clinical endpoint of interest, and thus creates an algorithm for predicting future outcomes within more homogeneous subgroups.

Results

Study Cohort Description

Table 1 shows basic demographics and other characteristics of the study sample (n = 225; 80% male; 96% traumatic injury etiology) at all time points after injury. One-month baseline subject and injury characteristics based on medication classification are shown in Table 2.

Table 1.

Cohort Description.^a

Characteristic	1 Month	3 Months	6 Months	12 Months
Total	225	204	165	136
Males	180	163	132	109
Females	45	41	33	27
Total motor score	53.2 ± 25.9	59.33 ± 26.33	62.36 ± 28.51	65.93 ± 26.98
UEMS	36.8 ± 16.3	39.5 ± 14.4	40.7 ± 14.2	42.5 ± 12.3
LEMS	16.9 ± 19.1	20.1 ± 20.2	21.8 ± 21.5	23.5 ± 21.7

Abbreviations: LEMS, lower extremity motor score; UEMS, upper extremity motor score.

Results are expressed as n or mean ± SD.

Table 2.

Cohort Description by Drug Status at First Time Point.^a

Characteristic	Anticonvulsant		NSAID
Characteristic	Yes (n = 40)	No (n = 185)	Yes (n = 136)	No (n = 89)
Male	27 (67.5)	153 (82.7)	105 (77.2)	75 (84.3)
Female	13 (32.5)	32 (17.3)	31 (22.8)	14 (15.7)
Age at injury (years)	47.8 ± 13.6	47.9 ± 18.6	50.8 ± 17.0	41.1 ± 17.1
AIS
A	12 (30.0)	70 (37.8)	49 (36.0)	33 (37.1)
B	3 (7.5)	20 (10.8)	12 (8.8)	10 (11.2)
C	8 (20.0)	31 (16.8)	23 (16.9)	16 (18.0)
D	17 (42.5)	64 (34.6)	51 (37.5)	30 (33.7)
Paraplegia	16 (40.0)	86 (46.5)	67 (50.0)	35 (39.8)
Tetraplegia	24 (60.0)	96 (51.9)	67 (50.0)	53 (60.2)
Total motor score	55.6 ± 27.3	52.6 ± 25.6	55.3 ± 26.3	49.9 ± 25.1
Maximum pain intensity	7.3 ± 2.1	6.7 ± 2.3	6.9 ± 2.1	6.8 ± 2.5
Pain classification
None	5 (12.5)^b	59 (31.9)^b	19 (13.9)^b	45 (50.6)^b
Nociceptive	19 (47.5)^b	79 (42.7)^b	71 (52.2)^b	27 (30.3)^b
Neuropathic	16 (40.0)^b	47 (25.4)^b	46 (33.8)^b	17 (19.1)^b

Abbreviations: AIS, American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale; NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

Results are expressed as n (%) or mean ± SD. Column percentages are shown. A total of 225 individuals were included in the study, though a few individuals did not have full neurological exams (hence missing data for a few categories, ie, cell count does not add up to 225). All categories shown are distinct (ie, nonoverlapping).

Significant difference (P < .05) between “yes” and “no” group (for a given drug).

Effect of Pain on Motor Recovery

Supplementary Tables 1 and 2 show the output from the mixed effects analysis: unadjusted and AIS-adjusted models. In each of these models (and subsequent tables), we were interested in comparing the rates of recovery between each group (ie, the interaction term indicated in the table). We found that regardless of how pain classification was modelled, there was no significant effect of pain on the rate of motor recovery (Supplementary Tables 1 and 2; P > .05 for interaction terms).

Effect of Pain Medication on Sensory and Motor Recovery

Supplementary Table 3 shows the relationship between anticonvulsant use at 1 month and total motor score recovery. In the unadjusted model (model 1), the use of anticonvulsants at 1-month postinjury significantly affected neurological recovery (drug × time interaction: P = .031). According to this mixed-effects model, individuals who were treated at this early time point with anticonvulsant drugs recovered an average of 7.3 motor points greater over the first year (ie, 0.02 points per day) compared with those untreated with anticonvulsants (Figure 1A and C, Supplementary Table 3). In the models, the main effect for drug was not significant; however, the significant interaction term indicates a faster rate of motor recovery in those administered anticonvulsants at 1 month. Importantly, the effect of anticonvulsants persisted after adjusting for initial AIS grade (P = .039 for 7.3 motor points over 1 year; model 2 in Supplementary Table 3). Moreover, when examined separately, LEMS recovered significantly more than UEMS in the anticonvulsant group (P < .05).

Figure 1.

Effect of pain medications on motor recovery following spinal cord injury. (A) Effect of anticonvulsants on motor recovery following spinal cord injury. Fitted curves derived from mixed-effects models: red, anticonvulsant users; blue, nonanticonvulsant users. *P = .031 for interaction effect. (B) Effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use on motor recovery following spinal cord injury. Fitted curves derived from mixed-effects models: red, NSAID users; blue, non-NSAID users. (C) Difference between motor scores (fitted values) at each time point between anticonvulsant users and nonusers (blue) and between NSAID users and nonusers (green).

We also examined whether the effect of anticonvulsants on motor recovery was confounded by initial pain intensity (ie, 1 week maximum or 1 week average), initial pain classification (ie, neuropathic vs nonneuropathic), injury etiology (ie, traumatic vs nontraumatic), other pain-related medications administered at the first time point (ie, opioids [n = 63 at 1 month] and antidepressants [n = 46 at 1 month]), as well as injury level (ie, quadriplegia vs paraplegia). After adjusting the model for each of these factors, the effect of anticonvulsants on motor recovery remained (ie, approximately 7-point improvement over 1 year, P < .05 for interaction term).

By contrast, NSAID use at 1-month postinjury had no significant effect on motor recovery (drug × time interaction: P = .586 and P = .593, unadjusted and adjusted for AIS-grade, respectively; Figure 1B and C and Supplementary Table 4). Neither NSAIDS nor anticonvulsants conferred any effects on sensory recovery.

Effect of Anticonvulsants on Pain Intensity

In addition to influencing neurological recovery, the use of anticonvulsants significantly reduced maximum pain intensity in individuals initially classified with nociceptive or neuropathic pain (P = .04 for time × drug interaction; Figure 2; Table 3). The effect of anticonvulsants on maximum pain intensity persisted after adjusting for initial pain classification (nociceptive vs neuropathic, P = .03 for interaction term).

Figure 2.

Effect of anticonvulsant use on pain intensity following spinal cord injury. Fitted curves derived from linear mixed-effects models: red, anticonvulsant users; blue, no anticonvulsant.

Table 3.

Pain Intensity: Maximum Pain Intensity at Each Time Point (0-10 Scale).^a

Maximum Pain Intensity	1 Month	3 Months	6 Months	12 Months
Study sample (whole group)	6.8 ± 2.2	6.4 ± 2.3	6.8 ± 2.2	6.1 ± 2.2
Anticonvulsant use at 1 month	7.3 ± 2.1	6.0 ± 2.6	6.2 ± 2.4	5.6 ± 2.1
No anticonvulsant use at 1 month	6.7 ± 2.3	6.6 ± 2.2	6.9 ± 2.1	6.3 ± 2.2

Results are expressed as mean ± SD.

Predicting Motor Recovery

Unbiased recursive partitioning focused on changes in motor scores between 1 and 6 months. Initial motor scores at 1 month and whether they were administered anticonvulsants and NSAIDs were included as explanatory variables. Only those explanatory variables that are significant predictors of outcome (ie, motor recovery between 1 and 6 months) are present in the trees; furthermore, the cutoffs indicated in the tree are automatically determined by the algorithm to yield the highest heterogeneity between groups. Figure 3 shows that anticonvulsants are indeed significant predictors of changes in UEMS, notably among those with a baseline UEMS of <40. Also, in the lower extremities, there was a significant effect of anticonvulsants on changes in LEMS, but this did not depend on initial LEMS (results not shown). NSAIDs, by contrast, were not significant predictors of changes in upper or lower extremities.

Figure 3.

Result tree of unbiased recursive partitioning. Outcome: change in upper extremity motor score (UEMS) from 1 to 6 months post injury. Each node (homogenous group) contains a box plot (dark horizontal line is the median value) for UEMS in each group. The cutoffs indicated in the tree branches (eg. baseline UEMS >40) are automatically determined by the algorithm to yield the highest heterogeneity between groups. The analysis was run on all study subjects.

Discussion

Recovery of Motor Outcomes After Spinal Cord Injury

The transition to chronic injury is characterized by an inherent but limited capacity for neurological recovery. A central goal of rehabilitation is to capitalize on this recovery, translating neurological changes into functional improvements. Documented in several large-scale observational studies, significant recovery of muscle strength in upper and lower limbs is expected during the transition from acute to chronic injury.^14-16 According to international standards, residual sensory and motor sparing below the neurological level of SCI, reflecting the initial severity or “completeness” of damage in the spinal cord, is the single most important predictor of the magnitude of recovery.¹⁴ However, a high degree of variability remains even after considering these injury characteristics. Seemingly identical injuries recover across a broad range, suggesting that other factors are needed to explain this variability.

The present findings are the first to demonstrate that acute management of neuropathic pain may have beneficial effects over the first year postinjury. Specifically, individuals treated with anticonvulsants demonstrated greater recovery of muscle function compared with individuals not treated with anticonvulsants. Importantly, the effect of anticonvulsants was observed independently of injury related characteristics, such as the injury severity and level of injury, and other pain medications. Moreover, findings from the mixed effects modelling were supported by URP, which revealed that anticonvulsants had a beneficial effect in both the upper and lower extremities. In addition to motor recovery, anticonvulsants significantly reduced maximum pain intensity during the transition from acute to chronic stages.

Motor Recovery and Clinical Trials in Spinal Cord Injury

To measure efficacy, changes in muscle strength greater than achieved due to spontaneous recovery have been examined in past clinical trials aimed at neuroprotection^17-19 and neuroregeneration.^20-22 Employing motor scores, recent studies have reported preliminary efficacy for minocycline^23,24 and riluzole^25,26—2 drugs that have been repurposed as potential neuroprotective agents in SCI. Based on our findings, we have identified a significant effect (approximately 7 motor points) of acute anticonvulsant treatment on motor scores after SCI. To put this recovery into context, 7 motor points is comparable to that reported in a landmark clinical trial examining the effects of acutely administered methylprednisolone (NASCIS Trial),²⁷ and a recent observational study demonstrating the efficacy of early surgical intervention.²⁸

While statistically significant, an important question to address is whether 7-point motor recovery represents a clinically meaningful change. Several factors potentially impact clinical significance, including where in relation to the neurological level of injury motor recovery occurs.²⁹ For example, motor recovery in cervical spinal segments adjacent to the level of injury may have a substantial impact on functional outcomes, caudally shifting motor level and improving function related to self-care.³⁰ In contrast, the recovery of muscle strength across a larger number of spinal segments without reaching a functional threshold (ie, motor score ≥3 or muscle strength against gravity) may be less clinically meaningful. From a pragmatic perspective, other important factors to consider include the invasiveness of the intervention, associated side effects, and financial costs.

Anticonvulsants and Spinal Cord Injury: Mechanisms of Action

In terms of mechanisms, greater neurological recovery in individuals administered anticonvulsants could be a result of improved pain outcomes, that is, reductions in pain during transition from acute to chronic SCI. Along similar lines, anticonvulsants have also demonstrated effectiveness to reduce spasticity.^31,32 In turn, reductions in pain and spasticity may indirectly improve motor outcomes through, among several potential mechanisms, increased participation in rehabilitation. However, our findings do not support this hypothesis (at least with respect to initial pain classification).

Other potential mechanisms may relate to neuroprotection and neuroplasticity. The “therapeutic window” for neuroprotection purportedly ranges from hours to days after injury.³³ Depending on the anticonvulsant medication administered, neuroprotection could be mediated through blockade of calcium and/or sodium channels, which in turn reduces the deleterious consequences of several well-known secondary injury mechanisms such as free radical generation, glutamate release, and lipid peroxidation.³⁴ Although preclinical SCI studies have demonstrated the neuroprotective effects of anticonvulsants,^6,7 administration may be required in a very narrow time window (ie, minutes to hours). Whereas medications for nociceptive pain (eg, NSAIDs and opioids) would expectedly be administered in this time frame (eg, as part of the perisurgical pain management), the neuroprotective window may be closed when neuropathic pain develops and anticonvulsant use is initiated.

An interesting alternative to consider is that anticonvulsants may affect endogenous neuroplasticity, such as sprouting. Proposed to mediate spontaneous repair in preclinical models of SCI,³⁵ sprouting is considered a major therapeutic target for the recovery of neurological function. In line with known mechanisms, anticonvulsants may attenuate aberrant plasticity through a reduction in hyperexcitability.³⁶ While mechanisms are poorly understood, aberrant neuroplasticity and hyperexcitability in the cord have been suggested as potential underlying substrates of neuropathic pain.³⁷ Similarly, through the attenuation of aberrant plasticity and hyperexcitability, anticonvulsants administered early after SCI in individuals with neuropathic pain may “redirect” or unmask potential for neurological recovery.

While NSAIDs have also been attributed neuroprotective properties in animal models of SCI,^8,33,38 we could not discern beneficial effects in terms of neurological recovery in this study. Several factors may explain the lack of a statistical effect, including that dosing for pain relief may have been suboptimal to achieve anti-inflammatory properties (ie, mechanism of neuroprotection).³⁹

Limitations and Future Directions

To investigate if anticonvulsants are a viable candidate to enhance neurological and functional outcomes, further studies are obviously warranted. In particular, information regarding different types of anticonvulsants (eg, gabapentin, pregabalin, carbamazepine, and valproic acid), as well as dosing and timing of administration are essential. A study proposing to acutely administer anticonvulsants would also need to consider potential side effects, such as fatigue,⁴⁰ and their impact on neurological outcomes. Side effects may be particularly problematic in individuals who do not have pain, and thus are not “benefiting” from reduced pain intensity associated with the use of anticonvulsants prescribed for other reasons. In terms of designing clinical trials, there are several advantages to repurposing anticonvulsants to promote neurological recovery, including that the safety profile in SCI is already well established.⁴¹

Future studies involving a greater number of subjects should further consider the impact of different types of neuropathic pain (ie, at and below level) on neurological recovery. It is particularly intriguing to consider that below level neuropathic pain may confer a benefit among individuals with sensorimotor complete SCI, as a potential surrogate of afferent sparing.⁴² Outside the scope of this analysis, we did not examine the relationship between changes in pain factors and injury characteristics with the recovery of motor function. This requires that time-varying covariates be included in longitudinal models (ie, changes in pain occurring in conjunction with motor recovery), which adds considerable complexity to the interpretation of results.

Patient dropout, inherent in all longitudinal cohort studies, may present a problem. In an observational cohort study, at 6 and 12 months after SCI, typically around the time patients are discharged from rehabilitation centers, this may be of particular concern. Another notable limitation of this observational study is that subjects were not randomized to different medications, and other factors related to the individual or their acute management, not captured in the EMSCI, may explain better the impact of anticonvulsants on neurological outcomes (ie, confounders, such as surgical intervention).^28,43,44 Related to the use of motor scores, the current study may also have limited sensitivity to detect changes in neurological function. Future studies may benefit from the addition of different outcome measures, including kinematics, electrophysiology, and neuroimaging.

Conclusion

In addition to the management of neuropathic pain, the present study reveals for the first time that the administration of anticonvulsants has the potential to improve motor recovery after acute SCI. While additional studies are needed, these seminal findings highlight that acute standards of care (ie, treatment with pain medications) can impact neurological outcomes.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all sites participating in the EMSCI.

Supplementary material for this article is available on the Neurorehabilitation & Neural Repair website at

Authors’ Note

Authors Armin Curt and John K. Kramer have shared last authorship. Armin Curt is also an author on behalf of the European Multi-centre Study on Spinal Cord injury (EMSCI) Study Group.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: JJC is an ALS Canada Tim E. Noël Postdoctoral Fellow and is supported by the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research. JKK is a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research and Rick Hansen Institute Scholar and is also supported by the North American Spine Society. JH is a Craig H. Neilsen Scholar. The project was supported by the Clinical Research Priority Program in Neurorehabilitation of the University of Zurich, Switzerland.

References

Finnerup

. Pain in patients with spinal cord injury. Pain. 2013;154(suppl 1):S71-S76.

Siddall

McClelland

Rutkowski

Cousins

. A longitudinal study of the prevalence and characteristics of pain in the first 5 years following spinal cord injury. Pain. 2003;103:249-257.

Finnerup

Jensen

. Spinal cord injury pain—mechanisms and treatment. Eur J Neurol. 2004;11:73-82.

Jensen

Chodroff

Dworkin

. The impact of neuropathic pain on health-related quality of life: review and implications. Neurology. 2007;68:1178-1182.

Hook

Moreno

Woller

. Intrathecal morphine attenuates recovery of function after a spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2009;26:741-752.

Kale

Börcek

AÖ

Emmez

. Neuroprotective effects of gabapentin on spinal cord ischemia-reperfusion injury in rabbits. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;15:228-237.

Hao

Wang

Guo

. Valproic acid reduces autophagy and promotes functional recovery after spinal cord injury in rats. Neurosci Bull. 2013;29:484-492.

Kopp

Liebscher

Niedeggen

. Small-molecule-induced Rho-inhibition: NSAIDs after spinal cord injury. Cell Tissue Res. 2012;349:119-132.

Putzke

Richards

Hicken

DeVivo

. Interference due to pain following spinal cord injury: important predictors and impact on quality of life. Pain. 2002;100:231-242.

10.

Fisher

Noonan

Smith

Wing

Dvorak

Kwon

. Motor recovery, functional status, and health-related quality of life in patients with complete spinal cord injuries. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30:2200-2207.

11.

Bryce

Biering-Sørensen

Finnerup

. International spinal cord injury pain classification: part I. Background and description. March 6-7, 2009. Spinal Cord. 2012;50:413-417.

12.

Schuld

Wiese

Hug

. Computer implementation of the international standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury for consistent and efficient derivation of its subscores including handling of data from not testable segments. J Neurotrauma. 2012;29:453-461.

13.

Tanadini

Steeves

Hothorn

. Identifying homogeneous subgroups in neurological disorders: unbiased recursive partitioning in cervical complete spinal cord injury. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014;28:507-515.

14.

Curt

Van Hedel

Klaus

Dietz

, EM-SCI Study Group. Recovery from a spinal cord injury: significance of compensation, neural plasticity, and repair. J Neurotrauma. 2008;25:677-685.

15.

Zariffa

Kramer

Fawcett

. Characterization of neurological recovery following traumatic sensorimotor complete thoracic spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2011;49:463-471.

16.

Steeves

Kramer

Fawcett

; EMSCI Study Group. Extent of spontaneous motor recovery after traumatic cervical sensorimotor complete spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2011;49:257-265.

17.

Hall

Springer

. Neuroprotection and acute spinal cord injury: a reappraisal. NeuroRx. 2004;1:80-100.

18.

Kwon

Borisoff

Tetzlaff

. Molecular targets for therapeutic intervention after spinal cord injury. Mol Interv. 2002;2:244-258.

19.

Rowland

Hawryluk

Kwon

Fehlings

. Current status of acute spinal cord injury pathophysiology and emerging therapies: promise on the horizon. Neurosurg Focus. 2008;25:E2.

20.

Yoon

Shim

Park

. Complete spinal cord injury treatment using autologous bone marrow cell transplantation and bone marrow stimulation with granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor: phase I/II clinical trial. Stem Cells. 2007;25:2066-2073.

21.

Féron

Perry

Cochrane

. Autologous olfactory ensheathing cell transplantation in human spinal cord injury. Brain. 2005;128(pt 12):2951-2960.

22.

Resnick

Cechvala

Yan

Witwer

Sun

Zhang

. Adult olfactory ensheathing cell transplantation for acute spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2003;20:279-285.

23.

Wells

Hurlbert

Fehlings

Yong

. Neuroprotection by minocycline facilitates significant recovery from spinal cord injury in mice. Brain. 2003;126:1628-1637.

24.

Casha

Zygun

McGowan

Bains

Yong

Hurlbert

. Results of a phase II placebo-controlled randomized trial of minocycline in acute spinal cord injury. Brain. 2012;135:1224-1236.

25.

Fehlings

Wilson

Frankowski

. Riluzole for the treatment of acute traumatic spinal cord injury: rationale for and design of the NACTN Phase I clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17(1 suppl):151-156.

26.

Grossman

Fehlings

Frankowski

. A prospective, multicenter, phase I matched-comparison group trial of safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of riluzole in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2014;31:239-255.

27.

Bracken

Shepard

Collins

. A randomized, controlled trial of methylprednisolone or naloxone in the treatment of acute spinal-cord injury. Results of the Second National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study. N Engl J Med. 1990;322:1405-1411.

28.

Dvorak

Noonan

Fallah

; RHSCIR Network. The influence of time from injury to surgery on motor recovery and length of hospital stay in acute traumatic spinal cord injury: an observational Canadian cohort study. J Neurotrauma. 2015;32:645-654.

29.

Liu

Tanadini

. Challenges for defining minimal clinically important difference (MCID) after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2015;53:84-91.

30.

Kramer

Lammertse

Schubert

Curt

Steeves

. Relationship between motor recovery and independence after sensorimotor-complete cervical spinal cord injury. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26:1064-1071.

31.

Rabchevsky

Patel

Lyttle

. Effects of gabapentin on muscle spasticity and both induced as well as spontaneous autonomic dysreflexia after complete spinal cord injury. Front Physiol. 2012;3:329.

32.

Braid

Kirker

Baguley

. Spasticity increases during pregabalin withdrawal. Brain Inj. 2013;27:120-124.

33.

Kwon

Okon

Hillyer

. A systematic review of non-invasive pharmacologic neuroprotective treatments for acute spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2011;28:1545-1588.

34.

Tator

. Update on the pathophysiology and pathology of acute spinal cord injury. Brain Pathol. 1995;5:407-413.

35.

Fouad

Dietz

Schwab

. Improving axonal growth and functional recovery after experimental spinal cord injury by neutralizing myelin associated inhibitors. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 2001;36:204-212.

36.

Suzuki

Dickenson

. Differential pharmacological modulation of the spontaneous stimulus-independent activity in the rat spinal cord following peripheral nerve injury. Exp Neurol. 2006;198:72-80.

37.

Bruce

Oatway

Weaver

. Chronic pain after clip-compression injury of the rat spinal cord. Exp Neurol. 2002;178:33-48.

38.

Wang

Budel

Baughman

Gould

Song

Strittmatter

. Ibuprofen enhances recovery from spinal cord injury by limiting tissue loss and stimulating axonal growth. J Neurotrauma. 2009;26:81-95.

39.

Bradley

Brandt

Katz

Kalasinski

Ryan

. Comparison of an antiinflammatory dose of ibuprofen, an analgesic dose of ibuprofen, and acetaminophen in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:87-91.

40.

Parsons

Sanin

Yang

Emir

Juhn

. Efficacy and safety of pregabalin in patients with spinal cord injury: a pooled analysis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2013;29:1675-1683.

41.

Tai

Kirshblum

Chen

Millis

Johnston

DeLisa

. Gabapentin in the treatment of neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover trial. J Spinal Cord Med. 2002;25:100-105.

42.

Wasner

Lee

Engel

McLachlan

. Residual spinothalamic tract pathways predict development of central pain after spinal cord injury. Brain. 2008;131:2387-2400.

43.

Wilson

Singh

Craven

. Early versus late surgery for traumatic spinal cord injury: the results of a prospective Canadian cohort study. Spinal Cord. 2012;50:840-843.

44.

Fehlings

Vaccaro

Wilson

. Early versus delayed decompression for traumatic cervical spinal cord injury: results of the Surgical Timing in Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study (STASCIS). PLoS One. 2012;7:e32037.

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.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB

Effects of Pain and Pain Management on Motor Recovery of Spinal Cord–Injured Patients

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Data Source and Study Design: European Multi-centre Study about Spinal Cord Injury

Pain Questionnaire

Outcome and Exposure Assessments

Statistics

Unbiased Recursive Partitioning

Results

Study Cohort Description

Effect of Pain on Motor Recovery

Effect of Pain Medication on Sensory and Motor Recovery

Effect of Anticonvulsants on Pain Intensity

Predicting Motor Recovery

Discussion

Recovery of Motor Outcomes After Spinal Cord Injury

Motor Recovery and Clinical Trials in Spinal Cord Injury

Anticonvulsants and Spinal Cord Injury: Mechanisms of Action

Limitations and Future Directions

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Authors’ Note

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

References

Supplementary Material