4.6 Article

Spinal Epidural Abscess: A 5-Year Case-Controlled Review of Neurologic Outcomes After Rehabilitation

Journal

ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
Volume 90, Issue 3, Pages 512-516

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2008.09.567

Keywords

Epidural abscess; Prognosis; Rehabilitation; Spinal cord injuries

Funding

  1. Rick Hansen Man in Motion Fund [74012100]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To describe the neurologic outcomes of 29 spinal epidural abscess (SEA) patients after rehabilitation compared with a case-controlled traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) cohort. Design: Five-year retrospective chart review. Setting: University-affiliated surgical spine unit and inpatient rehabilitation program. Participants: Patients (n = 29; 19 men, 10 women) requiring inpatient rehabilitation after SEA and TSCI case controls (n=29) matched by level of injury, American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS), ASIA motor score (AMS), sex, and age. Main Outcome Measure: The primary outcome was a change in AMS from acute admission to discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. Results: Despite having lower admission motor scores, there was a significant trend toward greater neurologic recovery in the SEA group (P=.047). In contrast to what is known regarding recovery from complete TSCI, this study shows potential for dramatic recovery in SEA subjects presenting with AIS grade A deficit with a 73% conversion rate to incomplete status; out of 11 SEA subjects with initial AIS grade A, 2 improved to AIS grade B, 1 to AIS grade C, and 5 to AIS grade D. Conclusions: This study shows the potential for a significant improvement in neurologic deficits related to SEA. Based on the results of our study, it is clearly inappropriate to generalize recovery patterns seen in the TSCI patient population to SEA-associated myelopathy because the latter appears to have more favorable outcomes.

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