Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24981671›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2015

Major neurological deficit following anterior cervical decompression and fusion: what is the next step?

Edward Bayley, Bronek M Boszczyk, Reuben Soh Chee Cheong, Abhishek Srivastava

Abstract readCase Reports
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Expert's comment concerning Grand Rounds case: "major neurological deficit following anterior cervical decompression and fusion: what is the next step?" (E. Bayley, B.M. Boszczyk and A. Srivastava).European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2015
    Article
  8. The paradigm of stem cell secretome in tissue repair and regeneration: Present and future perspectives.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Edward BayleyCentre for Spinal Studies and Surgery, Queen's Medical Centre, Derby Road, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK.
Bronek M Boszczyk
Reuben Soh Chee Cheong
Abhishek Srivastava
Queen's Medical Centre · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMajor neurological deficit following anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) is a rare event, with incidences of up to 0.2 % now reported. Post-operative MRI is mandatory to assess for ongoing compression of the cord. In the past, the deficit has often been attributed to oedema or overzealous intra-operative manipulation of the cord. Reperfusion injury is a more recent concept. We describe a case of acute cervical disc prolapse with progressive neurology, and the difficult decision making one is faced with when the neurological deficit continues to deteriorate post ACDF. MATERIALS AND

methodsA 30-year-old male was referred from the Emergency Department with acute left arm paraesthesia and left leg weakness. A cerebrovascular accident was ruled-out with a CT of the brain, and later an MRI of the cervical spine revealed a large C6/7 disc prolapse with significant compression of the spinal cord. A C6/7 ACDF was performed, but post-operatively the patient could no longer move his lower limbs. An urgent MRI was obtained which showed removal of the disc fragment, cord signal changes and the suggestion of ongoing cord compression. In part, this was due to his narrow cervical canal. The decision was made to proceed to posterior decompression and stabilisation, although cord reperfusion injury was one of the differential diagnoses considered at this stage.

resultsPost-operatively the patient's neurology started to improve over the next 48 h. He was discharged from in-patient rehabilitation at 2 months post-surgery and by 3 months he had returned to work. Latest follow-up revealed normal function with only mild paraesthesia in the T1 dermatome of his left arm.

conclusionThe management of patients in whom a neurological deficit has increased post-operatively is difficult. Urgent MRI scan is mandatory to assess for epidural haematoma which may need further decompression. Cord reperfusion injury is a diagnosis of exclusion. The difficulty the clinician faces is in interpreting the MRI for 'acceptable' decompression, and therefore excluding the need for further surgery.

Indexed as

AdultCervical VertebraeDecompression, SurgicalEdemaHumansIntervertebral Disc DisplacementMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleParesthesiaReperfusion InjurySpinal Cord CompressionSpinal Fusion

Identifiers

PMID24981671
OpenAlexW2039634170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.