ArticleActa neurochirurgica2024
Invasive devices to monitor the intraspinal perfusion pressure in the hemodynamic management of acute spinal cord injury: A systematic scoping review.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Intraspinal subdural hematoma after polytrauma].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Advances and New Therapies in Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Autonomic dysfunction and hemodynamic management after acute spinal cord injury: blood pressure targets, perfusion strategies, and emerging therapies.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious methods for measuring intrathecal pressure (ITP) after spinal cord injury (SCI) to guide hemodynamic management have been investigated. To synthesize the current literature, this current study conducted a scoping review of the use of intrathecal devices to monitor ITP during acute management of SCI with the aim of understanding the association between ITP monitoring with physiological and clinical outcomes.
methodsA systematic review of literature following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. All eligible studies were screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extracted included number of patients included, severity of injury, characteristics of the intervention-intrathecal device used to record the ITP, outcomes -hemodynamic parameters observed, changes in the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS), total motor scores, association of ITP with other physiological variables.
resultsThe search yielded a total of 1,698 articles, of which 30 observational studies and 2 randomized clinical trials were deemed eligible based on their use of an intrathecal invasive device to monitor spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP) in patients with SCI. Of these, 9 studies used a lumbar drain, 23 a Codman pressure probe and 1 study that used both. These studies underscore the crucial interplay between ITP, the SCPP and physiological variables, with neurological outcome. It is still unclear whether monitoring from a lumbar drain is accurate enough to highlight what is occurring at the site of SCI, which is the main advantage of Codman Probe, however, the latter requires specialized personnel that may not be available in most settings. Minor adverse effects were associated with lumbar drain catheters, while cerebrospinal fluid leak requiring repair (~ 7%) is the main concern with Codman Probes.
conclusionFuture investigation of SCPP protocols via lumbar drains and Codman probes ought to involve multi-centered randomized controlled trials and continued translational investigation with animal models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39382579What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.