Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for

  • Author or Editor: Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Keyvan Davatgaran Taghipoor, Roya Habibi Arejan, Mohammad Reza Rasouli, Soheil Saadat, Mojgan Moghadam, Alexander R. Vaccaro and Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar

Object

Pressure ulcers (PUs) are common complications in patients with complete spinal cord injury (SCI) or incomplete SCI in which sensory function is spared. Most studies analyzing associated factors of PU and SCI have been performed in cases of traumatic SCI and in just a few cases of nontraumatic SCI. This study was designed to look specifically at the differences in causative factors of PU in cases of traumatic and nontraumatic SCIs.

Methods

The authors performed a retrospective, cross-sectional study evaluating patients with complete and incomplete SCIs (American Spinal Injury Association Grades A and B) under the coverage of the financial, medicosocial, and rehabilitative support provided by the State Welfare Organization of Iran (SWOI). There were 3791 cases of traumatic SCI (63.2%) and 2110 cases of nontraumatic SCI (35.2%). For 94 patients (1.6%), sufficient data were not available.

Results

A PU was detected in 39.2% of all patients with an SCI (71.8% of those with traumatic SCI vs 28.2% of those with nontraumatic SCI). A univariate analysis showed a significant association between occupation, education, and the presence of PU in patients with a traumatic SCI (p < 0.05). This contrasted with nontraumatic SCI in which an association between PU and age was noted (p < 0.05).

Using logistic regression, traumatic cause, older age, an interval less than 1 year since the onset of SCI, male sex, and single status were found to significantly increase the risk of PU in all patients with an SCI. However, a higher education level had a preventive effect on PU.

Conclusions

This study revealed some risk factors for PU in the authors' setting. The authors' findings suggest a possible difference between the risk factors for PU in patients with both types of SCI. Further study on the pathoetiology of these differences is paramount in the future.

Restricted access

Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar

Restricted access

MirHojjat Khorasanizadeh, Mahmoud Yousefifard, Mahsa Eskian, Yi Lu, Maryam Chalangari, James S. Harrop, Seyed Behnam Jazayeri, Simin Seyedpour, Behzad Khodaei, Mostafa Hosseini and Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar

OBJECTIVE

Predicting neurological recovery following traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) is a complex task considering the heterogeneous nature of injury and the inconsistency of individual studies. This study aims to summarize the current evidence on neurological recovery following TSCI by use of a meta-analytical approach, and to identify injury, treatment, and study variables with prognostic significance.

METHODS

A literature search in MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed, and studies reporting follow-up changes in American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS) or Frankel or ASIA motor score (AMS) scales were included in the meta-analysis. The proportion of patients with at least 1 grade of AIS/Frankel improvement, and point changes in AMS were calculated using random pooled effect analysis. The potential effect of severity, level and mechanism of injury, type of treatment, time and country of study, and follow-up duration were evaluated using meta-regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 114 studies were included, reporting AIS/Frankel changes in 19,913 patients and AMS changes in 6920 patients. Overall, the quality of evidence was poor. The AIS/Frankel conversion rate was 19.3% (95% CI 16.2–22.6) for patients with grade A, 73.8% (95% CI 69.0–78.4) for those with grade B, 87.3% (95% CI 77.9–94.8) for those with grade C, and 46.5% (95% CI 38.2–54.9) for those with grade D. Neurological recovery was significantly different between all grades of SCI severity in the following order: C > B > D > A. Level of injury was a significant predictor of recovery; recovery rates followed this pattern: lumbar > cervical and thoracolumbar > thoracic. Thoracic SCI and penetrating SCI were significantly more likely to result in complete injury. Penetrating TSCI had a significantly lower recovery rate compared to blunt injury (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62–0.92; p = 0.006). Recovery rate was positively correlated with longer follow-up duration (p = 0.001). Studies with follow-up durations of approximately 6 months or less reported significantly lower recovery rates for incomplete SCI compared to studies with long-term (3–5 years) follow-ups.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors’ meta-analysis provides an overall quantitative description of neurological outcomes associated with TSCI. Moreover, they demonstrated how neurological recovery after TSCI is significantly dependent on injury factors (i.e., severity, level, and mechanism of injury), but is not associated with type of treatment or country of origin. Based on these results, a minimum follow-up of 12 months is recommended for TSCI studies that include patients with neurologically incomplete injury.

Restricted access

Mahmoud Yousefifard, Solmaz Nasseri Maleki, Shaghayegh Askarian-Amiri, Alexander R. Vaccaro, Jens R. Chapman, Michael G. Fehlings, Mostafa Hosseini and Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar

OBJECTIVE

There is controversy about the role of scaffolds as an adjunctive therapy to mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) transplantation in spinal cord injury (SCI). Thus, the authors aimed to design a meta-analysis on preclinical evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of combination therapy of scaffold + MSC transplantation in comparison with scaffolds alone and MSCs alone in improving motor dysfunction in SCI.

METHODS

Electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception until the end of August 2018. Two independent reviewers screened related experimental studies. Animal studies that evaluated the effectiveness of scaffolds and/or MSCs on motor function recovery following experimental SCI were included. The findings were reported as standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 34 articles were included in the meta-analysis. Analyses show that combination therapy in comparison with the scaffold group alone (SMD 2.00, 95% CI 1.53–2.46, p < 0.0001), the MSCs alone (SMD 1.58, 95% CI 0.84–2.31, p < 0.0001), and the nontreated group (SMD 3.52, 95% CI 2.84–4.20, p < 0.0001) significantly improved motor function recovery. Co-administration of MSCs + scaffolds only in the acute phase of injury (during the first 3 days after injury) leads to a significant recovery compared to scaffold alone (SMD 2.18, p < 0.0001). In addition, the cotransplantation of scaffolds with bone marrow–derived MSCs (SMD 1.99, p < 0.0001) and umbilical cord–derived MSCs (SMD 1.50, p = 0.001) also improved motor function following SCI.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings showed that scaffolds + MSCs is more effective than scaffolds and MSCs alone in improving motor function following SCI in animal models, when used in the acute phase of injury.