A population-based study comparing traumatic spinal cord injury and non-traumatic spinal cord injury using a national rehabilitation database

New, Peter W; Simmonds, Frances D; Stevermuer, Tara

doi:10.1038/sc.2010.77

Cited by 78 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…17 Only patients discharged between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2006 were included in this study. Patients were excluded if they were admitted for o7 days, admitted only for assessment, or were recorded as a readmission for management of late complications and not a recent onset SCI.…”

Section: Setting and Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The cognitive subscale of the FIM was not included as an outcome measure because of the high-ceiling effect in T-SCI and in NT-SCI patients. 17,18 Data quality There were 1026 discharges with recent onset SCI reported from 94 of the 130 (74.3%) participating rehabilitation units in 2006. In a desire to ascertain the quality of the data and verify the classification of SCI diagnoses, it was planned to conduct a limited audit.…”

Section: Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of patients managed in specialised spinal rehabilitation units with those managed in non-specialised rehabilitation units

2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Setting and Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of patients managed in specialised spinal rehabilitation units with those managed in non-specialised rehabilitation units

2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…14 There are motor and cognitive domains, 15 but in patients with SCM (including spinal cord infection) the cognitive subscale has a high ceiling effect and is of limited utility. 16 Therefore, only the motor subscale was recorded within 72 h of admission and discharge. The raw FIM motor subscale scores were also transformed using a Rasch analysis conversion table to facilitate parametric analysis.…”

Section: Collected Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Rehabilitation outcomes following infections causing spinal cord myelopathy

New

Astrakhantseva

2014

Spinal Cord

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study design:Retrospective, open-cohort, consecutive case series. Objective: To describe the demographic characteristics, clinical features and outcomes in patients undergoing initial in-patient rehabilitation after an infectious cause of spinal cord myelopathy. Setting: Spinal Rehabilitation Unit, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Admissions between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2010. Methods: The following data were recorded: aetiology of spinal cord infection, risk factors, rehabilitation length of stay (LOS), level of injury (paraplegia vs tetraplegia), complications related to spinal cord damage and discharge destination. The American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS) and functional independence measure (FIM) were assessed at admission and at discharge. Results: Fifty-one patients were admitted (men ¼ 32, 62.7%) with a median age of 65 years (interquartile range (IQR) 52-72, range 22-89). On admission, 37 (73%) had paraplegic level of injury and most patients (n ¼ 46, 90%) had an incomplete grade of spinal damage. Infections were most commonly bacterial (n ¼ 47, 92%); the other causes were viral (n ¼ 3, 6%) and tuberculosis (n ¼ 1, 2%). The median LOS was 106 days . The most common complications were pain (n ¼ 47, 92%), urinary tract infection (n ¼ 27, 53%), spasticity (n ¼ 25, 49%) and pressure ulcer during acute hospital admission (n ¼ 19, 37%). By the time of discharge from rehabilitation, patients typically showed a significant change in their AIS grade of spinal damage (Po0.001). They also showed significant improvement (Po0.001) in their FIM motor score (at admission: median ¼ 27, IQR 20-34; at discharge: median ¼ 66, IQR 41-75). Conclusion: Most patients returned home with a good level of functioning with respect to mobility, bladder and bowel status, and their disability improved significantly.

show abstract

“…The demographic characteristics and rehabilitation outcomes of patients with T-SCI have been extensively studied, 3,4 whereas research into patients with NT-SCI has been noticeably limited until more recently, 5,6 despite some studies suggesting the incidence of NT-SCI to be even greater than that of T-SCI. 3,7 Previous research comparing T-SCI and NT-SCI patients has demonstrated clear differences in demographic characteristics, 8 together with similarities and differences in rehabilitation outcomes. Generally, studies have shown that NT-SCI patients had a significantly shorter length of stay in hospital, while T-SCI patients demonstrated significantly greater Functional Independence Measure (FIM) 9 change scores during rehabilitation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Traumatic versus non-traumatic spinal cord injuries: are there differential rehabilitation outcomes?

Kennedy

Chessell

2013

Spinal Cord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study design: Retrospective case review. Objectives: To compare the rehabilitation outcomes between patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries and patients with nontraumatic spinal cord injuries, using The Needs Assessment Checklist (NAC), to observe if both the groups benefit from the same rehabilitation programme. Setting: Tertiary care, spinal cord injury rehabilitation unit (National Spinal Injuries Centre), Stoke Mandeville Hospital, UK. Methods: Information obtained with the NAC at two time points during patients' rehabilitation was examined. Statistical analysis investigated the rehabilitation outcomes both between and within groups. Results: Initial differences were observed on admission between patients with traumatic and non-traumatic spinal cord injuries in five of the ten rehabilitation domains measured, with patients with non-traumatic injuries presenting with better outcomes. At a later stage in patients' rehabilitation, however, differences between the groups had lessened. Furthermore, the results demonstrated that the whole cohort made significant improvements in all the ten rehabilitation domains, with the same finding evident for both patients with traumatic and patients with non-traumatic spinal cord injuries. Conclusion: Patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries and patients with non-traumatic spinal cord injuries benefitted from the same rehabilitation programme in a spinal injury centre, making significant improvements in all ten rehabilitation domains measured, suggesting that it is effective to admit and rehabilitate patients with injuries resulting from both traumatic and non-traumatic aetiologies in the same specialised setting.

show abstract

A population-based study comparing traumatic spinal cord injury and non-traumatic spinal cord injury using a national rehabilitation database

Cited by 78 publications

References 17 publications

Comparison of patients managed in specialised spinal rehabilitation units with those managed in non-specialised rehabilitation units

Comparison of patients managed in specialised spinal rehabilitation units with those managed in non-specialised rehabilitation units

Rehabilitation outcomes following infections causing spinal cord myelopathy

Traumatic versus non-traumatic spinal cord injuries: are there differential rehabilitation outcomes?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About