Cited by 92Spinal Cord Injury ResearchSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Neurologic Deterioration After Cervical Spinal Cord Injury

Abstract

Neurologic deterioration after cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) at a regional spinal cord center was examined. This study examined the incidence of neurologic deterioration as well as associated risk factors in our patient population. Up to 5.8% of cervical SCI patients have been noted to deteriorate neurologically after admission. Risk factors have been early surgery, halo application, traction, and Stryker frame rotation. All cervical SCI patients admitted between 1978 and 1993 who had neurologic deterioration were studied for characteristics of their event, operative status, risk factors, mortality, and neurologic return at 1 year postinjury. Patients were divided into minor and major groups based on the degree of neurologic loss. Nineteen of 1,031 patients were identified as neurologically deteriorated (1.84%). There were 8 major and 11 minor group patients. The average time from injury to deterioration was 3.95 days. Of 10 patients undergoing surgery at < or =5 days, 8 deteriorated postoperatively. Potential risk factors were ankylosing spondylitis (three patients), sepsis (four patients), and intubation (four patients). Neurologic recovery at 1 year showed that 11 of 12 patients were improved. Neurologic deterioration occurred in 1.84% of our patients. Deteriorations were associated with surgery at <5 days after injury, ankylosing spondylitis, sepsis, and intubation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00002517-199806000-00002

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Even in patients with known cervical spine injuries, secondary neurologic deterioration is rare, with a reported incidence of 0.03%.

    “even in patients with known cervical spine injuries, secondary neurologic deterioration is rare, with a reported incidence of 0.03%.33,[37][38][39]”

    From Airway Management in Trauma (2018) · cites this paper as [39]

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Farmer, J., Vaccaro, A., Albert, T. J., Malone, S., Balderston, R. A., & Cotler, J. M.
Affiliations
Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
  • Farmer, James
  • Vaccaro, Alexander
  • Albert, Todd J.
Venue
Journal of Spinal Disorders
Published
1998-06
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
192???196
ISSN
0895-0385 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2056381566
Cited by
92
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Spinal Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Spinal Cord Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Keywords
cervical spinal cord injury, neurological deterioration, risk factors, early surgical intervention, halo immobilization, traction, ankylosing spondylitis, sepsis, intubation, neurological recovery, mortality
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Cervical Vertebrae, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nerve Degeneration, Postoperative Period, Risk Factors, Spinal Cord Injuries, Spondylitis, Ankylosing, Incidence, Spinal Fractures, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review