4.6 Review

Pathophysiological mechanisms of chronic compressive spinal cord injury due to vascular events

Journal

NEURAL REGENERATION RESEARCH
Volume 18, Issue 4, Pages 790-796

Publisher

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/1673-5374.353485

Keywords

angiogenesis; cervical spondylotic myelopathy; hypoxia; inflammation; ischemia; spinal cord injury; surgical decompression

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy is a common cause of non-traumatic spinal cord injury. The main pathological changes involve compression and damage to the microvascular network, leading to ischemia and inflammation. Vascular regeneration and remodeling play a crucial role in neural repair.
Cervical spondylotic myelopathy is the main cause of non-traumatic spinal cord injury, with chronic static and/or dynamic compressive spinal cord injury as the unique pathogenesis. In the progression of this condition, the microvascular network is compressed and destroyed, resulting in ischemia and hypoxia. The main pathological changes are inflammation, damage to the blood spinal cord barriers, and cell apoptosis at the site of compression. Studies have confirmed that vascular regeneration and remodeling contribute to neural repair by promoting blood flow and the reconstruction of effective circulation to meet the nutrient and oxygen requirements for nerve repair. Surgical decompression is the most effective clinical treatment for this condition; however, in some patients, residual neurological dysfunction remains after decompression. Facilitating revascularization during compression and after decompression is therefore complementary to surgical treatment. In this review, we summarize the progress in research on chronic compressive spinal cord injury, covering both physiological and pathological changes after compression and decompression, and the regulatory mechanisms of vascular injury and repair.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available