Questionnaire survey of the views of the delegates at the European Cervical Spine Research Society meeting on the administration of methylprednisolone for acute traumatic spinal cord injury.
METHODS
A questionnaire survey.


OBJECTIVE
To collate and analyze the views of the delegates who attended the European Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) meeting on the use of methylprednisolone for acute traumatic spinal cord injury.


BACKGROUND
The NASCIS II and III studies reported improved neurologic recovery in patients who were treated with methylprednisolone within 8 hours of their acute traumatic spinal cord injury. A number of reported commentaries have criticized these trials. A recent audit in the authors' regional spinal injuries unit in the United Kingdom found that a large percentage of patients were not receiving methylprednisolone. The authors decided to collate the views of the delegates at the CSRS regarding the use of steroids for acute traumatic spinal cord injury.


METHODS
A questionnaire was created that took into account the positive reported findings as well as the criticisms of the NASCIS studies. Delegates who attended the European CSRS meeting completed this questionnaire.


RESULTS
Seventy-five percent of the delegates answered that they used or recommended methylprednisolone in the treatment of acute traumatic spinal cord injury. Nevertheless, the delegates had an average of 1.5 reservations about administering methylprednisolone. The most common reservation was that they did not think the improvement conferred to the patients by administering methylprednisolone had been clinically or functionally proven. There were reservations about the validity of the statistical analysis used in the NASCIS studies and by the omission of a placebo group in NASCIS III. The majority of the delegates thought it was not medicolegally negligent to withhold the administration of methylprednisolone in the treatment of acute traumatic spinal cord injury.


CONCLUSIONS
The use of methylprednisolone in the treatment of acute traumatic spinal cord injury is still controversial. It would appear from a recent prospective audit at the authors' spinal injuries unit that a large percentage of patients in the United Kingdom are not receiving methylprednisolone. Because so much doubt exists, the NASCIS studies should be repeated.
Molloy
S
S
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, Middlesex, United Kingdom. sean.molloy@btinternet.com
Price
M
M
Casey
A T
AT
D000208:Acute Disease; D005938:Glucocorticoids / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D007722:Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; D006801:Humans; D008775:Methylprednisolone / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D010818:Practice Patterns, Physicians' / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D012955:Societies, Medical; D013119:Spinal Cord Injuries / Q000188:drug therapy*; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires
D005938:Glucocorticoids; D008775:Methylprednisolone