4.3 Article

Charcot Spine following chronic spinal cord injury: an analysis of 201 published cases

Journal

SPINAL CORD
Volume 57, Issue 2, Pages 85-90

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41393-018-0216-6

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Study design Analysis of published cases Objectives To identify and describe symptoms, radiologic findings, treatment strategies, and reoccurrence of Charcot spine in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). Methods This analysis included all English articles published prior to October 2017, describing Charcot spine after SCI as identified by multiple reviewers. Articles were excluded if Charcot spine was attributed to alternative conditions. Individual level data were available for 94% of reported cases. Outcomes included demographic factors, injury characteristics, clinical presentation, radiologic findings, management, and reoccurrence. Results Fifty included papers described 201 individuals with SCI who developed Charcot spine. 86% of individuals had paraplegia and 93% of individuals had a neurologically complete injury. Mean length of initial spinal fusion spanned 7.7 vertebral bodies (SD = 3.9). The most common presenting symptoms were back pain (56%), spinal deformity (48%), and crepitus (34%). Vertebral body destruction (83%), osteophytes (61%), and endplate destruction (57%) were commonly reported on radiographs. Reoccurrence of Charcot spine was described in 19% of cases after initial treatment. Conclusion Charcot spine after SCI commonly presents with low back pain and radiologic evidence of vertebral body destruction. Cases have been described more often in individuals with paraplegia and neurologically complete injuries. Surgical management is often pursued. A high rate of reoccurrence of Charcot spine in individuals with SCI after initial treatment has been reported.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available