Authors

Thorsten Jentzsch, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5T 2S8, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada; Department of Orthopedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland
David W Cadotte, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary Combined Spine Program, Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
Jefferson R Wilson, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5T 2S8, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, St. Michael's Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5T 2S8, Canada
Fan Jiang, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5T 2S8, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada
Jetan H Badhiwala, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5T 2S8, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada
Muhammad A Akbar, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5T 2S8, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada
Brett Rocos, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5T 2S8, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada
Robert G Grossman, Department of Neurosurgery, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX 77030, USA
Bizhan Aarabi, Department of Neurosurgery, University of Maryland Medical Center and R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA
James Harrop, Departments of Neurological Surgery and Orthopedic Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USAFollow
Michael G Fehlings, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5T 2S8, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

10-18-2021

Comments

This article is the author's final published version in Journal of Clinical Medicine, Volume 10, Issue 20, October 2021, Article number 4778.

The published version is available at https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10204778.

Copyright © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract

Prognostic factors for clinical outcome after spinal cord (SC) injury (SCI) are limited but important in patient management and education. There is a lack of evidence regarding magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical outcomes in SCI patients. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether baseline MRI features predicted the clinical course of the disease. This study is an ancillary to the prospective North American Clinical Trials Network (NACTN) registry. Patients were enrolled from 2005-2017. MRI within 72 h of injury and a minimum follow-up of one year were available for 459 patients. Patients with American Spinal Injury Association impairment scale (AIS) E were excluded. Patients were grouped into those with (n = 354) versus without (n = 105) SC signal change on MRI T2-weighted images. Logistic regression analysis adjusted for commonly known a priori confounders (age and baseline AIS). Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was any adverse event. Secondary outcomes were AIS at the baseline and final follow-up, length of hospital stay (LOS), and mortality. A regression model adjusted for age and baseline AIS. Patients with intrinsic SC signal change were younger (46.0 (interquartile range (IQR) 29.0 vs. 50.0 (IQR 20.5) years, p = 0.039). There were no significant differences in the other baseline variables, gender, body mass index, comorbidities, and injury location. There were more adverse events in patients with SC signal change (230 (65.0%) vs. 47 (44.8%), p < 0.001; odds ratio (OR) = 2.09 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31-3.35), p = 0.002). The most common adverse event was cardiopulmonary (186 (40.5%)). Patients were less likely to be in the AIS D category with SC signal change at baseline (OR = 0.45 (95% CI 0.28-0.72), p = 0.001) and in the AIS D or E category at the final follow-up (OR = 0.36 (95% CI 0.16-0.82), p = 0.015). The length of stay was longer in patients with SC signal change (13.0 (IQR 17.0) vs. 11.0 (IQR 14.0), p = 0.049). There was no difference between the groups in mortality (11 (3.2%) vs. 4 (3.9%)). MRI SC signal change may predict adverse events and overall LOS in the SCI population. If present, patients are more likely to have a worse baseline clinical presentation (i.e., AIS) and in- or outpatient clinical outcome after one year. Patients with SC signal change may benefit from earlier, more aggressive treatment strategies and need to be educated about an unfavorable prognosis.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

PubMed ID

34682902

Language

English

Share

COinS