scholarly journals Spinal cord injuries without radiologic abnormality in children: a systematic review

Spinal Cord ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 53 (12) ◽  
pp. 842-848 ◽  
Author(s):  
T Carroll ◽  
C D Smith ◽  
X Liu ◽  
B Bonaventura ◽  
N Mann ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 78 ◽  
pp. 102-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mostafa Hosseini ◽  
Mahmoud Yousefifard ◽  
Masoud Baikpour ◽  
Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar ◽  
Farinaz Nasirinezhad ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822090168
Author(s):  
Mark J. Lambrechts ◽  
James L. Cook

Study Design: Systematic review. Objective: Spinal cord injuries (SCIs) resulting in motor deficits can be devastating injuries resulting in millions of health care dollars spent per incident. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a potential class of drugs that could improve motor function after an SCI. This systematic review utilizes PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the effectiveness of NSAIDs for SCI. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, and Scopus were reviewed linking the keywords of “ibuprofen,” “meloxicam,” “naproxen,” “ketorolac,” “indomethacin,” “celecoxib,” “ATB-346,” “NSAID,” and “nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug” with “spinal.” Results were reviewed for relevance and included if they met inclusion criteria. The SYRCLE checklist was used to assess sources of bias. Results: A total of 2960 studies were identified in the PubMed/MEDLINE database using the above-mentioned search criteria. A total of 461 abstracts were reviewed in Scopus, 340 in CINAHL, 179 in PsycINFO, and 7632 in Embase. A total of 15 articles met the inclusion criteria. Conclusions: NSAIDs’ effectiveness after SCI is largely determined by its ability to inhibit Rho-A. NSAIDs are a promising therapeutic option in acute SCI patients because they appear to decrease cord edema and inflammation, increase axonal sprouting, and improve motor function with minimal side effects. Studies are limited by heterogeneity, small sample size, and the use of animal models, which might not replicate the therapeutic effects in humans. There are no published human studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of these drugs after a traumatic cord injury. There is a need for well-designed prospective studies evaluating ibuprofen or indomethacin after adult spinal cord injuries.


2016 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christie WL Chan ◽  
Janice J. Eng ◽  
Charles H. Tator ◽  
Andrei Krassioukov ◽  

Author(s):  
H. Hugenholtz ◽  
D.E. Cass ◽  
M.F. Dvorak ◽  
D.H. Fewer ◽  
R.J. Fox ◽  
...  

Background:A systematic review of the evidence pertaining to methylprednisolone infusion following acute spinal cord injury was conducted in order to address the persistent confusion about the utility of this treatment.Methods:A committee of neurosurgical and orthopedic spine specialists, emergency physicians and physiatrists engaged in active clinical practice conducted an electronic database search for articles about acute spinal cord injuries and steroids, from January 1, 1966 to April 2001, that was supplemented by a manual search of reference lists, requests for unpublished additional information, translations of foreign language references and study protocols from the author of a Cochrane systematic review and Pharmacia Inc. The evidence was graded and recommendations were developed by consensus.Results:One hundred and fifty-seven citations that specifically addressed spinal cord injuries and methylprednisolone were retrieved and 64 reviewed. Recommendations were based on one Cochrane systematic review, six Level I clinical studies and seven Level II clinical studies that addressed changes in neurological function and complications following methylprednisolone therapy.Conclusion:There is insufficient evidence to support the use of high-dose methylprednisolone within eight hours following an acute closed spinal cord injury as a treatment standard or as a guideline for treatment. Methylprednisolone, prescribed as a bolus intravenous infusion of 30 mg per kilogram of body weight over fifteen minutes within eight hours of closed spinal cord injury, followed 45 minutes later by an infusion of 5.4 mg per kilogram of bodyweight per hour for 23 hours, is only a treatment option for which there is weak clinical evidence (Level I- to II-1). There is insufficient evidence to support extending methylprednisolone infusion beyond 23 hours if chosen as a treatment option.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. P1590-P1590
Author(s):  
Nicole Pacheco ◽  
Shirin Mollayeva ◽  
Angela Colantonio ◽  
Tatyana Mollayeva

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document