IMPORTANCEThe optimal management for acute traumatic cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) is unknown. OBJECTIVE To determine whether early surgical decompression results in better motor recovery than delayed surgical treatment in patients with acute traumatic incomplete cervical SCI associated with preexisting canal stenosis but without bone injury. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted in 43 tertiary referral centers in Japan from December 2011 through November 2019. Patients aged 20 to 79 years with motor-incomplete cervical SCI with preexisting canal stenosis (American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] Impairment Scale C; without fracture or dislocation) were included. Data were analyzed from September to November 2020. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to undergo surgical treatment within 24 hours after admission or delayed surgical treatment after at least 2 weeks of conservative treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end points were improvement in the mean ASIA motor score, total score of the spinal cord independence measure, and the proportion of patients able to walk independently at 1 year after injury. RESULTS Among 72 randomized patients, 70 patients (mean [SD] age, 65.1 [9.4] years; age range, 41-79 years; 5 [7%] women and 65 [93%] men) were included in the full analysis population (37 patients assigned to early surgical treatment and 33 patients assigned to delayed surgical treatment).Of these, 56 patients (80%) had data available for at least 1 primary outcome at 1 year. There was no significant difference among primary end points for the early surgical treatment group compared with the delayed surgical treatment group (mean [SD] change in ASIA motor score, 53.7 [14.7] vs 48.5 [19.1]; difference, 5.2; 95% CI, −4.2 to 14.5; P = .27; mean [SD] SCIM total score, 77.9 [22.7] vs 71.3 [27.3]; P = .34; able to walk independently, 21 of 30 patients [70.0%] vs 16 of 26 patients [61.5%]; P = .51). A mixed-design analysis of variance revealed a significant difference in the mean change in ASIA motor scores between the groups (F 1,49 = 4.80; P = .03). The early surgical treatment group, compared with the delayed surgical treatment group, had greater motor scores than the delayed surgical treatment group at 2 weeks (mean [SD] score, 34.2 [18.8] vs 18.9 [20.9]), 3 months (mean [SD] score, 49.1 [15.1] vs 37.2 [20.9]), and 6 months (mean [SD] score, 51.5 [13.9] vs 41.3 [23.4]) after injury. Adverse events were common in both groups (eg, worsening of paralysis, 6 patients vs 6 patients; death, 3 patients vs 3 patients).

Rationale: Although C5 palsy is a common complication of cervical spine surgery, its cause has not been confirmed. There are various hypotheses for its mechanism, including spinal cord impairment and nerve involvement. Therefore, prophylactic foraminotomy is one of the methods recommended for preventing C5 palsy. However, we describe a patient who experienced C5 palsy after microendoscopic foraminotomy between the left C5/6 and C6/7 levels. Patient concerns: A 43-year-old man presented with a 14-month history of progressive numbness in the left upper limb. We performed microendoscopic left foraminal decompressions at the C5/6/7 levels to treat the left C6 and C7 radiculopathy. On the postoperative day 1, we observed weak motor strength of the left deltoid, left biceps, and left forearm pronator, while the motor strength of the other muscles was normal. Diagnoses: C5 palsy following C5/6/7 left foraminotomy. Intervention: Follow-up rehabilitation with muscle strength training and range of motion training. Outcome: The patient recovered his motor strength completely within 3 months postoperatively. Lessons: In this case, the C5 palsy could not be adequately explained by the theory of nerve root impingement or disruption in blood circulation following spinal cord decompression. We hypothesized that the patient had drill heat-induced C5 palsy. Regarding the C5 palsy without C5 nerve root decompression, we hypothesize that the C5 palsy in C5/6/7 foraminotomy could be related to variations in the formation of the brachial plexus. Prophylactic foraminotomy for cervical posterior surgery should be performed with care, limiting its use in patients who are at a risk of developing C5 palsy because the prophylactic procedure can cause C5 palsy. We must also consider that even without decompression at the C4/5 level, there is a possibility of C5 palsy occurring.

BackgroundMicroendoscopic laminectomy (MEL), in which a 16-mm tubular retractor with an internal scope is used, has shown excellent surgical results for patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis. However, no reports have directly compared MEL with open laminectomy. This study aimed to elucidate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and perioperative complications in patients undergoing MEL versus open laminectomy.MethodsThis is a multicenter retrospective cohort study of prospectively registered patients who underwent lumbar spinal surgery at one of the six high-volume spine centers between April 2017 and September 2018. A total of 258 patients who underwent single posterior lumbar decompression at L4/L5 were enrolled in the study. With regard to demographic data, we prospectively used chart sheets to evaluate the diagnosis, operative procedure, operation time, estimated blood loss, and complications. PROs included a numerical rating scale (NRS) for lower back pain and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EuroQol 5 Dimension (EQ-5D), and patient satisfaction with the treatment. ResultsOf the 258 patients enrolled, 252 (97%) completed the 1-year follow-up. Of the 252, 130 underwent MEL (MEL group) and 122 underwent open decompression (open group). The MEL group required a significantly shorter operating time and sustained lesser intraoperative blood loss compared with the open group. The overall complication rate was similar (8.2% in the MEL group versus 7.7% in the open group), and the revision rate did not significantly differ. As for PROs, both preoperative and postoperative values did not significantly differ between the two groups. However, the satisfaction rate was higher in the MEL group (74%) than in the open group (53%) (p = 0.02). ConclusionsMEL required a significantly shorter operating time and resulted in lesser intraoperative blood loss compared with laminectomy. Postoperative PROs and complication rates were not significantly different between the procedures, although MEL demonstrated a better satisfaction rate.

No abstract

Background: There has been a paucity of literature revealing the discrepancy between self-recognition about hallux valgus (HV) and radiographically-evaluated foot configuration.Questions/Purposes: (1) Is there a discrepancy between radiographically-assessed and self-recognized HV in the general population? (2) What factors affect the self-recognition of HV in the general population?Methods: The fifth survey of the Research on Osteoarthritis/Osteoporosis against Disability study involved 1996 participants who had undergone anterior-posterior radiography of bilateral feet and answered an interviewer-administered questionnaire on self-recognition of HV. Measurements of the HV angle (HVA) and interphalangeal angle of the hallux (IPA) were performed using radiographs. After univariate comparison of the participant backgrounds and radiographic measurements between participants with or without self-recognition of HV, multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted in order to reveal independent factors affecting self-recognition.Results: The mean HVA and IPA were 16.8°and 15.4°, respectively. Significant difference was found between the prevalence of radiographically-assessed and self-recognized HV (29.8% vs. 16.5%, p < 0.0001). The prevalence of self-recognized HV increased with the progression of HV severity from a single-digit percentage (normal grade, HVA < 20°) up to 100% (severe grade, HVA ≥ 40°). A multivariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated that HVA and female sex were independent positive factors for self-recognition of HV (HVA [per 1° increase]: OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.18-1.22; p < 0.0001; and female sex [vs. male sex]: OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 2.14-4.73; p < 0.0001).Conclusions: There was a significant discrepancy between radiographically-assessed and self-recognized HV which narrowed with the progressing severity of HV. HVA and female sex were independent positive factors for self-recognition of HV.