To determine the influence of time from injury to surgery on neurological recovery and length of stay (LOS) in an observational cohort of individuals with traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI), we analyzed the baseline and follow-up motor scores of participants in the Rick Hansen Spinal Cord Injury Registry to specifically assess the effect of an early (less than 24 h from injury) surgical procedure on motor recovery and on LOS. One thousand four hundred and ten patients who sustained acute tSCIs with baseline American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) grades A, B, C, or D and were treated surgically were analyzed to determine the effect of the timing of surgery (24, 48, or 72 h from injury) on motor recovery and LOS. Depending on the distribution of data, we used different types of generalized linear models, including multiple linear regression, gamma regression, and negative binomial regression. Persons with incomplete AIS B, C, and D injuries from C2 to L2 demonstrated motor recovery improvement of an additional 6.3 motor points (SE=2.8 p<0.03) when they underwent surgical treatment within 24 h from the time of injury, compared with those who had surgery later than 24 h post-injury. This beneficial effect of early surgery on motor recovery was not seen in the patients with AIS A complete SCI. AIS A and B patients who received early surgery experienced shorter hospital LOS. While the issues of when to perform surgery and what specific operation to perform remain controversial, this work provides evidence that for an incomplete acute tSCI in the cervical, thoracic, or thoracolumbar spine, surgery performed within 24 h from injury improves motor neurological recovery. Early surgery also reduces LOS.

Clinical trials of therapies for acute traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) have failed to convincingly demonstrate efficacy in improving neurologic function. Failing to acknowledge the heterogeneity of these injuries and under-appreciating the impact of the most important baseline prognostic variables likely contributes to this translational failure. Our hypothesis was that neurological level and severity of initial injury (measured by the American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale [AIS]) act jointly and are the major determinants of motor recovery. Our objective was to quantify the influence of these variables when considered together on early motor score recovery following acute tSCI. Eight hundred thirty-six participants from the Rick Hansen Spinal Cord Injury Registry were analyzed for motor score improvement from baseline to follow-up. In AIS A, B, and C patients, cervical and thoracic injuries displayed significantly different motor score recovery. AIS A patients with thoracic (T2-T10) and thoracolumbar (T11-L2) injuries had significantly different motor improvement. High (C1-C4) and low (C5-T1) cervical injuries demonstrated differences in upper extremity motor recovery in AIS B, C, and D.A hypothetical clinical trial example demonstrated the benefits of stratifying on neurological level and severity of injury. Clinically meaningful motor score recovery is predictably related to the neurological level of injury and the severity of the baseline neurological impairment. Stratifying clinical trial cohorts using a joint distribution of these two variables will enhance a study's chance of identifying a true treatment effect and minimize the risk of misattributed treatment effects. Clinical studies should stratify participants based on these factors and record the number of participants and their mean baseline motor scores for each category of this joint distribution as part of the reporting of participant characteristics. Improved clinical trial design is a high priority as new therapies and interventions for tSCI emerge.