Length of Cervical Stenosis, Admission ASIA Motor Scores, and BASIC Scores Are Predictors of Recovery Rate Following Central Cord Syndrome.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine whether quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters and radiological scoring systems could be used as a reliable assessment tool for predicting neurological recovery trajectory following acute traumatic central cord injury syndrome (CCS).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Controversy remains in whether CCS should be managed conservatively or by early surgical decompression. It is essential to understand how clinical and radiological parameters correlate with neurological deficits and how they predict recovery trajectories.

METHODS: We identified patients with CCS admitted between 2011 and 2018 with a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Cervical MRIs were analyzed for cord/canal dimensions, Brain and Spinal Injury Center (BASIC) scores and sagittal grading as ordinal scales of intraparenchymal cord injury. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) recovery rates (≥50% as good, < 50% as poor) were analyzed against these variables by logistic regression and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves. Additionally, we evaluated American Spinal Injury Association motor scale (AMS) scores/recovery rates.

RESULTS: Sixty patients were included, of which 30 were managed conservatively and 30 via surgical decompression. The average follow-up duration for the entire cohort was (51.1 ± 25.7) months. Upon admission, sagittal grading correlated with AMS and JOA scores (P < 0.01, β = 0.48). Volume of the C2 to C7 canal and axial cord area over the site of maximal compression correlated with AMS and JOA scores respectively (P = 0.04, β = 0.26; P = 0.01, β = 0.28). We determined admission AMS more than 61 to be a clinical cutoff for good recovery (area under the receiver operating curve [AUC] = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61-0.85, sensitivity 80.9%, specificity 69.2%, P < 0.01). Radiological cutoffs to identify patients with poor recovery rates were length of cervical spinal stenosis more than 3.9 cm (AUC = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.63-0.87, specificity 91.7%, sensitivity 52.2%, P < 0.01), BASIC score of more than 1 (AUC = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.56-0.81, specificity 80.5%, sensitivity 51.1%, P = 0.02). Surgical decompression performed as a salvage procedure upon plateau of recovery did not improve neurological outcomes.

CONCLUSION: Clinical and radiological parameters upon presentation were prognosticative of neurological recovery rates in CCS. Surgery performed beyond the acute post-injury period failed to improve outcomes.Level of Evidence: 3.