TY - JOUR
T1 - Iatrogenic spinal cord ischemia
T2 - A patient level meta-analysis of 74 case reports and series
AU - Naik, Anant
AU - Moawad, Christina M.
AU - Houser, Samantha L.
AU - Kesavadas, T
AU - Arnold, Paul M.
N1 - Funding Information:
None. As a systematic review and meta-analysis, the study is exempt from institutional review board review. However, the authors do confirm that components to this study were in bounds with local research policies at the University of Illinois and Carle Foundation Hospital, in addition to generally accepted ethical guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. AN, CM, SH were responsible for designing the review protocol, conducting the search, screening potentially eligible studies, extracting and analyzing data, interpreting results, and writing the paper. TKK and PMA provided invaluable feedback and critical edits for this paper. There are no funding sources to report.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021
PY - 2021/12
Y1 - 2021/12
N2 - Background: We seek to characterize the features of iatrogenic spinal ischemia, determine which spinal levels are affected, and evaluate the efficacy of management strategies. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of case reports and series of spinal ischemia in the past 10 years. 343 full-length case reports and case series were screened against predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. 89 patients were included for our final meta-analysis using PRISMA guidelines. Results: Mean age of patients was 59.62 years (range: 9 months-88 years). 66% of all cases were male. Endovascular surgery (32.6%) and aortic surgery (36.0%) were most common causes of iatrogenic injury, followed by non-aortic surgery (32.6%), and non-surgical procedures (22.47%). A- and B-level ASIA Impairment was found in 66% of all patients. Rehabilitation was the most common management (49.44% of cases), followed by blood pressure management (40.45%). Non-aortic surgeries had the poorest overall outcomes (OR = 0.28, p = 0.016), whereas aortic and endovascular surgeries saw significant improvement in outcomes measured at discharge (OR = 2.6, OR = 2.3, respectively, p < 0.05). Therapeutic surgical infarctions were found to be associated with improved outcomes (OR = 5.33, p = 0.032). Ischemic injury to T4–T7, and T10 were associated with significantly poorer outcomes. Autonomic impairment was associated with a likelihood of infarction at T10 (OR = 4.54, p = 0.0183). Conclusions: In this paper, we compare outcomes following iatrogenic spinal ischemia. We demonstrate the need for more comprehensive randomized controlled trials to test effective treatment strategies.
AB - Background: We seek to characterize the features of iatrogenic spinal ischemia, determine which spinal levels are affected, and evaluate the efficacy of management strategies. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of case reports and series of spinal ischemia in the past 10 years. 343 full-length case reports and case series were screened against predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. 89 patients were included for our final meta-analysis using PRISMA guidelines. Results: Mean age of patients was 59.62 years (range: 9 months-88 years). 66% of all cases were male. Endovascular surgery (32.6%) and aortic surgery (36.0%) were most common causes of iatrogenic injury, followed by non-aortic surgery (32.6%), and non-surgical procedures (22.47%). A- and B-level ASIA Impairment was found in 66% of all patients. Rehabilitation was the most common management (49.44% of cases), followed by blood pressure management (40.45%). Non-aortic surgeries had the poorest overall outcomes (OR = 0.28, p = 0.016), whereas aortic and endovascular surgeries saw significant improvement in outcomes measured at discharge (OR = 2.6, OR = 2.3, respectively, p < 0.05). Therapeutic surgical infarctions were found to be associated with improved outcomes (OR = 5.33, p = 0.032). Ischemic injury to T4–T7, and T10 were associated with significantly poorer outcomes. Autonomic impairment was associated with a likelihood of infarction at T10 (OR = 4.54, p = 0.0183). Conclusions: In this paper, we compare outcomes following iatrogenic spinal ischemia. We demonstrate the need for more comprehensive randomized controlled trials to test effective treatment strategies.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85121218143&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85121218143&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.xnsj.2021.100080
DO - 10.1016/j.xnsj.2021.100080
M3 - Review article
C2 - 35141645
AN - SCOPUS:85121218143
SN - 2666-5484
VL - 8
JO - North American Spine Society Journal
JF - North American Spine Society Journal
M1 - 100080
ER -