ArticleNeurocritical care2026
Monitoring from the Injury Site After Spinal Cord Injury: Case Series of 109 Patients from Five Intensive Care Units.
Article in Neurocritical care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe review the international experience of placing monitoring probes intrathecally at the injury site in patients with acute, severe traumatic spinal cord injuries. The aims are to assess the types of probes used, their placement, signal quality, and safety.
methodsWe analyzed data from 109 adult patients managed in intensive care units in Aarhus, Leuven, Ljubljana, London, and Madrid. A questionnaire was distributed to all participating sites and data were retrospectively collected from each patient's medical record.
resultsAdmission American Spinal Injury Association (AIS) grade was A (58.7%), B (19.3%), or C (22.0%). The probes remained for 5.3 ± 0.2 days (mean ± standard error). All patients had intraspinal pressure probes, 67.9% also had microdialysis probes, and 44.0% also had oxygen probes. Signal quality was good most of the time in 89.0% (intraspinal pressure), 95.9% (microdialysis), and 79.2% (oxygen) of patients. Computed tomography (CT) obtained in 89.0% of patients confirmed good probe position in all but one patient. Cerebrospinal fluid leak occurred in 20.8% of patients, 81.8% of whom required bedside suturing, 9.1% of whom required lumbar drainage, and 9.1% of whom required probe removal. Pseudomeningocele developed in 10.4% patients, of whom 81.8% were asymptomatic and 18.2% required surgery. Wound infections were reported in 4.7% patients: 60.0% resolved with antibiotics and 40.0% required surgical debridement. There was no spinal cord damage, meningitis, or hematoma. Though the probe signals were used for research, we show examples of potential clinical value. The probes allow for visualization in real time of spinal cord perfusion pressure, spinal cord autoregulation, spinal cord tissue oxygenation, and metabolism.
conclusionsThe main risks of intrathecal monitoring probes are cerebrospinal fluid leak, pseudomeningocele, and wound infection. Spinal cord damage, meningitis, or hematoma have not been observed. The probes provide good quality data in most patients with acute, severe traumatic spinal cord injuries that could potentially be used to guide clinical management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42601564What 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.