Eren, Fatma

Background Successful utilization of the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) requires a comprehensive understanding of its rules, terminology, and several complex concepts. There have been no studies investigating classification accuracy since the newest ISNCSCI revision (2019). Objectives To evaluate classification accuracy of SCI professionals using the 2019 ISNCSCI edition, identify common mistakes and areas of confusion, and assess associations between experience in ISNCSCI classification and performance. Methods Members of the International Spinal Cord Society (ISCoS) and attendees of the ISCoS Annual Scientific Meeting 2021 were invited to complete an online survey that included six ISNCSCI cases to classify. Results A total of 107 persons completed the survey, with overall classification accuracy of 74.6%. Accuracy was highest for injury completeness (95.3%) and sensory level (91.1%) and lowest for motor zone of partial preservation (ZPP; 54.7%) and ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS) grade (57.3%). Newer concepts, including the appropriate documentation of non-SCI conditions and classification of ZPP in incomplete injuries, contributed to several common errors. There was a significant association between overall classification accuracy and self-rated experience in the ISNCSCI classification ( p = .017). Experience with the ISNCSCI examination, experience in SCI medicine, and occupation were not found to be significantly associated with overall classification accuracy. Conclusion Classification accuracy of an international cohort of SCI professionals was modest but greater than previous reports. Knowledge deficits about the 2019 ISNCSCI updates are prevalent and contribute to common classification errors. Further training in the utilization of the ISNCSCI is needed.

The predominant tool used to predict outcomes after traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) is the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI), in association with the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS). These measures have evolved based on analyses of large amounts of longitudinal neurological recovery data published in numerous separate studies. This article reviews and synthesizes published data on neurological recovery from multiple sources, only utilizing data in which the sacral sparing definition was applied for determination of completeness. Conversion from a complete to incomplete injury is more common in tetraplegia than paraplegia. The majority of AIS conversion and motor recovery occurs within the first 6–9 months, with the most rapid rate of motor recovery occurring in the first three months after injury. Motor score changes, as well as recovery of motor levels, are described with the initial strength of muscles as well as the levels of the motor zone of partial preservation influencing the prognosis. Total motor recovery is greater for patients with initial AIS B than AIS A, and greater after initial AIS C than with motor complete injuries. Older age has a negative impact on neurological and functional recovery after SCI; however, the specific age (whether >50 or >65 years) and underlying reasons for this impact are unclear. Penetrating injury is more likely to lead to a classification of a neurological complete injury compared with blunt trauma and reduces the likelihood of AIS conversion at one year. There are insufficient data to support gender having a major effect on neurological recovery after SCI.