No abstract

Objectives: To compare the route from injury to rehabilitation, and the outcome of care in a large sample of traumatic (T) and nontraumatic (NT) spinal cord lesion (SCL) patients at their 'first admission'. Setting: T and NT SCI patients consecutively admitted to 37 SCL centres in Italy. Method: Data were recorded on simple, computerised, closed-question forms, which were Centrally collected and analysed. Descriptive and inferential analysis was conducted to define the characteristics and compare the T and NT populations, and to identify correlations among the variables examined: time from the event to admission (TEA); pressure sores (PS) on admission; length of stay (LoS) and destination on discharge. Results: A total of 1014 SCL patients, 67.5% with a lesion of T and 32.5% of NT aetiology were analysed. The subjects in the T group were younger (median 34 versus 58 years), with higher probability of cervical involvement (OR 2.47, CI 1.8-3.4) and completeness of the lesion (OR 3.0, CI 2.3-4.0), shorter median TEA(37 versus 64 days, Po0.0001) and less frequent admission from home (3.6 versus 17.4%) compared to the NT group. TEA and PS on admission were analysed as indicators of the efficacy of the courses from injury to rehabilitation. Longer TEA was reported for people with NT aetiology, admitted to rehabilitation centre (RC), not locally resident, transferred from certain wards and to a lesser degree female subjects and those with complications on admission. PS were associated to www.nature.com/sc completeness of lesion, longer TEA, admission to RC, nonlocal residence and coming from general intensive care units, or general surgery wards. Median LoS was 99 days (mean 116 and range 0-672), and was statistically shorter in the NT group (122 versus 57 median, Po0.00001). Upon discharge, bladder and bowel autonomy were, respectively, obtained in 68.1 and 64.5% of the whole population without significant difference between the T and NT groups. A total of 80.2% of patients were discharged home and the following factors: not living alone, being discharged after longer LoS, having sphincterial autonomy and no PS, were all independent predictors of outcome. Conclusion: There are important obstacles in the admission route to rehabilitation facilities, greater for NT, as longer TEA and more complications on admission testify. Moreover, the LoS is shorter for NT population. Our findings suggest that rehabilitation outcome could be improved through an early multidisciplinary approach and better continuity between acute and rehabilitation care, especially for the 'neglected' NT SCL patients.

This systematic review indicates that there is no reliable evidence to support the effectiveness of multisensory stimulation programmes in patients in coma or the vegetative state.

No abstract

BackgroundComa and vegetative state follow traumatic brain injury in about one out of eight patients, and in patients with non traumatic injury the prognosis is worse. The use of sensory stimulation for coma and vegetative state has gained popularity during the 1980's but beliefs and opinions about its e ectiveness vary substantially among health professionals. ObjectivesTo assess the e ectiveness of sensory stimulation programmes in patients in coma or vegetative state. Search methodsWe searched the Injuries Group specialised register, the Cochrane Controlled trials register, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL and PSYCHLIT from 1966 to January 2002, without language restriction. Reference lists of articles were scanned and we contacted experts in the area to find other relevant studies. Selection criteriaRandomised or controlled trials that compared sensory stimulation programmes with standard rehabilitation in patients in coma or vegetative state. Data collection and analysisAbstracts and papers found were screened by one reviewer. Three reviewers independently identified relevant studies, extracted data and assessed study quality resolving disagreement by consensus. Main resultsThree studies were identified with 68 patients in total. The overall methodological quality was poor and studies di ered widely in terms of outcomes measures, study design and conduct. We therefore did not carry out any quantitative synthesis but reviewed results of available studies qualitatively.Sensory stimulation for brain injured individuals in coma or vegetative state (Review)