4.7 Article

Surfers' myelopathy A case series of 19 novice surfers with nontraumatic myelopathy

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 79, 期 22, 页码 2171-2176

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31827595cd

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: We report the clinical characteristics of the largest series of nontraumatic spinal cord injury in novice surfers (surfers' myelopathy). Methods: A retrospective review of the electronic medical record was performed in patients with nontraumatic spinal cord injury associated with surfing identified upon admission to the largest tertiary referral hospital in Hawaii from June 2002 to November 2011. Classification by the American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) was performed upon admission and at follow-up. Clinical management, including blood pressure measurements and optimization, use of corticosteroids, and diagnostic evaluations, were reviewed. Follow-up information was obtained by clinic visits, telephone interviews, and electronic mail up to 3 years after injury. Results: In 19 patients (14 male) aged 15-46 years, all patients complained of sudden onset of low back pain while surfing, followed by bilateral leg numbness and paralysis progressing over 10-60 minutes. All patients were novice surfers; 17 of 19 were surfing for the first time. On T2-weighted MRI, all patients had hyperintensity from the lower thoracic spinal cord to the conus medullaris. Six of 10 patients who underwent spinal diffusion-weighted MRI showed restricted diffusion in this region. Patients presenting with worse AIS scores had minimal improvement at follow-up. Blood pressure, corticosteroids, and imaging results were not associated with severity of neurologic deficits at follow-up. Conclusions: Although the cause of surfers' myelopathy is unclear, the rapid onset and presence of restricted diffusion suggest ischemic injury. Admission severity appears to be most predictive of neurologic outcome. Neurology (R) 2012;79:2171-2176

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据