James S. Harrop

In Brief Study Design. Systematic review and modified Delphi technique. Objective. To use an evidence-based medicine process using the best available literature and expert opinion consensus to develop a comprehensive classification system to diagnose neoplastic spinal instability. Summary of Background Data. Spinal instability is poorly defined in the literature and presently there is a lack of guidelines available to aid in defining the degree of spinal instability in the setting of neoplastic spinal disease. The concept of spinal instability remains important in the clinical decision-making process for patients with spine tumors. Methods. We have integrated the evidence provided by systematic reviews through a modified Delphi technique to generate a consensus of best evidence and expert opinion to develop a classification system to define neoplastic spinal instability. Results. A comprehensive classification system based on patient symptoms and radiographic criteria of the spine was developed to aid in predicting spine stability of neoplastic lesions. The classification system includes global spinal location of the tumor, type and presence of pain, bone lesion quality, spinal alignment, extent of vertebral body collapse, and posterolateral spinal element involvement. Qualitative scores were assigned based on relative importance of particular factors gleaned from the literature and refined by expert consensus. Conclusion. The Spine Instability Neoplastic Score is a comprehensive classification system with content validity that can guide clinicians in identifying when patients with neoplastic disease of the spine may benefit from surgical consultation. It can also aid surgeons in assessing the key components of spinal instability due to neoplasia and may become a prognostic tool for surgical decision-making when put in context with other key elements such as neurologic symptoms, extent of disease, prognosis, patient health factors, oncologic subtype, and radiosensitivity of the tumor. Spinal instability is poorly defined especially in neoplastic disease. The SOSG has developed a comprehensive classification system to define neoplastic spinal instability (the Spine Instability Neoplastic Score). The Spine Instability Neoplastic Score will aid oncologists and primary care physicians in determining timing of referral to spine surgeons and will aid surgeons in assessing need for surgical stabilization.

BACKGROUND: There is convincing preclinical evidence that early decompression in the setting of spinal cord injury (SCI) improves neurologic outcomes. However, the effect of early surgical decompression in patients with acute SCI remains uncertain. Our objective was to evaluate the relative effectiveness of early (<24 hours after injury) versus late (≥ 24 hours after injury) decompressive surgery after traumatic cervical SCI. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, international, prospective cohort study (Surgical Timing In Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study: STASCIS) in adults aged 16-80 with cervical SCI. Enrolment occurred between 2002 and 2009 at 6 North American centers. The primary outcome was ordinal change in ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS) grade at 6 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes included assessments of complications rates and mortality. FINDINGS: A total of 313 patients with acute cervical SCI were enrolled. Of these, 182 underwent early surgery, at a mean of 14.2(± 5.4) hours, with the remaining 131 having late surgery, at a mean of 48.3(± 29.3) hours. Of the 222 patients with follow-up available at 6 months post injury, 19.8% of patients undergoing early surgery showed a ≥ 2 grade improvement in AIS compared to 8.8% in the late decompression group (OR = 2.57, 95% CI:1.11,5.97). In the multivariate analysis, adjusted for preoperative neurological status and steroid administration, the odds of at least a 2 grade AIS improvement were 2.8 times higher amongst those who underwent early surgery as compared to those who underwent late surgery (OR = 2.83, 95% CI:1.10,7.28). During the 30 day post injury period, there was 1 mortality in both of the surgical groups. Complications occurred in 24.2% of early surgery patients and 30.5% of late surgery patients (p = 0.21). CONCLUSION: Decompression prior to 24 hours after SCI can be performed safely and is associated with improved neurologic outcome, defined as at least a 2 grade AIS improvement at 6 months follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic spinal cord injuries (SCI) have devastating consequences for the physical, financial, and psychosocial well-being of patients and their caregivers. Expediently delivering interventions during the early postinjury period can have a tremendous impact on long-term functional recovery. PATHOPHYSIOLOGY: This is largely due to the unique pathophysiology of SCI where the initial traumatic insult (primary injury) is followed by a progressive secondary injury cascade characterized by ischemia, proapoptotic signaling, and peripheral inflammatory cell infiltration. Over the subsequent hours, release of proinflammatory cytokines and cytotoxic debris (DNA, ATP, reactive oxygen species) cyclically adds to the harsh postinjury microenvironment. As the lesions mature into the chronic phase, regeneration is severely impeded by the development of an astroglial-fibrous scar surrounding coalesced cystic cavities. Addressing these challenges forms the basis of current and upcoming treatments for SCI. MANAGEMENT: This paper discusses the evidence-based management of a patient with SCI while emphasizing the importance of early definitive care. Key neuroprotective therapies are summarized including surgical decompression, methylprednisolone, and blood pressure augmentation. We then review exciting neuroprotective interventions on the cusp of translation such as Riluzole, Minocycline, magnesium, therapeutic hypothermia, and CSF drainage. We also explore the most promising neuroregenerative strategies in trial today including Cethrin™, anti-NOGO antibody, cell-based approaches, and bioengineered biomaterials. Each section provides a working knowledge of the key preclinical and patient trials relevant to clinicians while highlighting the pathophysiologic rationale for the therapies. CONCLUSION: We conclude with our perspectives on the future of treatment and research in this rapidly evolving field.

In Brief Study Design. A new proposed classification system for thoracolumbar (TL) spine injuries, including injury severity assessment, designed to assist in clinical management. Objective. To devise a practical, yet comprehensive, classification system for TL injuries that assists in clinical decision-making in terms of the need for operative versus nonoperative care and surgical treatment approach in unstable injury patterns. Summary of Background Data. The most appropriate classification of traumatic TL spine injuries remains controversial. Systems currently in use can be cumbersome and difficult to apply. None of the published classification schemata is constructed to aid with decisions in clinical management. Methods. Clinical spine trauma specialists from a variety of institutions around the world were canvassed with respect to information they deemed pivotal in the communication of TL spine trauma and the clinical decision-making process. Traditional injury patterns were reviewed and reconsidered in light of these essential characteristics. An initial validation process to determine the reliability and validity of an earlier version of this system was also undertaken. Results. A new classification system called the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) was devised based on three injury characteristics: 1) morphology of injury determined by radiographic appearance, 2) integrity of the posterior ligamentous complex, and 3) neurologic status of the patient. A composite injury severity score was calculated from these characteristics stratifying patients into surgical and nonsurgical treatment groups. Finally, a methodology was developed to determine the optimum operative approach for surgical injury patterns. Conclusions. Although there will always be limitations to any cataloging system, the TLICS reflects accepted features cited in the literature important in predicting spinal stability, future deformity, and progressive neurologic compromise. This classification system is intended to be easy to apply and to facilitate clinical decision-making as a practical alternative to cumbersome classification systems already in use. The TLICS may improve communication between spine trauma physicians and the education of residents and fellows. Further studies are underway to determine the reliability and validity of this tool. A new thoracolumbar trauma classification system is described called the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS). It is composed of three main components: 1) morphology of injury according to radiographic features, 2) integrity of the posterior ligamentous complex, and 3) neurologic status of the patient. This new classification scheme accounts for predictors of spinal stability, future deformity, and progressive neurologic compromise, thereby facilitating clinical decision making.

PURPOSE: Standardized indications for treatment of tumor-related spinal instability are hampered by the lack of a valid and reliable classification system. The objective of this study was to determine the interobserver reliability, intraobserver reliability, and predictive validity of the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS). METHODS: Clinical and radiographic data from 30 patients with spinal tumors were classified as stable, potentially unstable, and unstable by members of the Spine Oncology Study Group. The median category for each patient case (consensus opinion) was used as the gold standard for predictive validity testing. On two occasions at least 6 weeks apart, each rater also scored each patient using SINS. Each total score was converted into a three-category data field, with 0 to 6 as stable, 7 to 12 as potentially unstable, and 13 to 18 as unstable. RESULTS: The κ statistics for interobserver reliability were 0.790, 0.841, 0.244, 0.456, 0.462, and 0.492 for the fields of location, pain, bone quality, alignment, vertebral body collapse, and posterolateral involvement, respectively. The κ statistics for intraobserver reliability were 0.806, 0.859, 0.528, 0.614, 0.590, and 0.662 for the same respective fields. Intraclass correlation coefficients for inter- and intraobserver reliability of total SINS score were 0.846 (95% CI, 0.773 to 0.911) and 0.886 (95% CI, 0.868 to 0.902), respectively. The κ statistic for predictive validity was 0.712 (95% CI, 0.676 to 0.766). CONCLUSION: SINS demonstrated near-perfect inter- and intraobserver reliability in determining three clinically relevant categories of stability. The sensitivity and specificity of SINS for potentially unstable or unstable lesions were 95.7% and 79.5%, respectively.