Weber-Levine Carly, Judy Brendan F, Hersh Andrew M, Awosika Tolulope, Tsehay Yohannes, Kim Timothy, Chara Alejandro, Theodore Nicholas
J Neurosurg Spine. 2022 Jun 3;37(5):729-739. doi: 10.3171/2022.4.SPINE211434. Print 2022 Nov 1.
The authors systematically reviewed current evidence for the utility of mean arterial pressure (MAP), intraspinal pressure (ISP), and spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP) as predictors of outcomes after traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI).
PubMed, Cochrane Reviews Library, EMBASE, and Scopus databases were queried in December 2020. Two independent reviewers screened articles using Covidence software. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. The inclusion criteria for articles were 1) available in English; 2) full text; 3) clinical studies on traumatic SCI interventions; 4) involved only human participants; and 5) focused on MAP, ISP, or SCPP. Exclusion criteria were 1) only available in non-English languages; 2) focused only on the brain; 3) described spinal diseases other than SCI; 4) interventions altering parameters other than MAP, ISP, or SCPP; and 5) animal studies. Studies were analyzed qualitatively and grouped into two categories: interventions increasing MAP or interventions decreasing ISP. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network level of evidence was used to assess bias and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to rate confidence in the anticipated effects of each outcome.
A total of 2540 unique articles were identified, of which 72 proceeded to full-text review and 24 were included in analysis. One additional study was included retrospectively. Articles that went through full-text review were excluded if they were a review paper (n = 12), not a full article (n = 12), a duplicate paper (n = 9), not a human study (n = 3), not in English (n = 3), not pertaining to traumatic SCI (n = 3), an improper intervention (n = 3), without intervention (n = 2), and without analysis of intervention (n = 1). Although maintaining optimal MAP levels is the current recommendation for SCI management, the published literature supports maintenance of SCPP as a stronger indicator of favorable outcomes. Studies also suggest that laminectomy and durotomy may provide better outcomes than laminectomy alone, although higher-level studies are needed. Current evidence is inconclusive on the effectiveness of CSF drainage for reducing ISP.
This review demonstrates the importance of assessing how different interventions may vary in their ability to optimize SCPP.
作者系统回顾了目前关于平均动脉压(MAP)、脊髓内压(ISP)和脊髓灌注压(SCPP)作为创伤性脊髓损伤(SCI)后预后预测指标的效用的证据。
于2020年12月检索了PubMed、Cochrane综述图书馆、EMBASE和Scopus数据库。两名独立评审员使用Covidence软件筛选文章。分歧由第三名评审员解决。文章的纳入标准为:1)英文可用;2)全文;3)关于创伤性SCI干预的临床研究;4)仅涉及人类参与者;5)关注MAP、ISP或SCPP。排除标准为:1)仅以非英语语言提供;2)仅关注大脑;3)描述SCI以外的脊髓疾病;4)改变MAP、ISP或SCPP以外参数的干预措施;5)动物研究。对研究进行定性分析,并分为两类:提高MAP的干预措施或降低ISP的干预措施。使用苏格兰校际指南网络的证据水平来评估偏倚,并使用推荐分级、评估、制定和评价方法来对每个结果的预期效果的可信度进行评级。
共识别出2540篇独特文章,其中72篇进入全文评审,24篇纳入分析。另外一项研究进行了回顾性纳入。如果是综述论文(n = 12)、非全文文章(n = 12)、重复论文(n = 9)、非人体研究(n = 3)、非英文(n = 3)、与创伤性SCI无关(n = 3)、干预措施不当(n = 3)、无干预措施(n = 2)以及无干预措施分析(n = 1),则经过全文评审的文章被排除。尽管维持最佳MAP水平是目前SCI管理的推荐做法,但已发表的文献支持将维持SCPP作为良好预后的更强指标。研究还表明,椎板切除术和硬脊膜切开术可能比单纯椎板切除术提供更好的结果,尽管需要更高水平的研究。目前的证据对于脑脊液引流降低ISP的有效性尚无定论。
本综述证明了评估不同干预措施在优化SCPP能力方面可能存在差异的重要性。