A retrospective study.
To assess improvement in volitional motor function after SCI, using The Spinal Cord Ability Ruler (SCAR) as a metric and investigate participant characteristics and recovery of motor functioning.
A highly-specialized SCI rehabilitation unit (Spinal Cord Injury Centre of Western Denmark, SCIWDK).
Retrospectively, data on all SCI patients admitted to SCIWDK between 1 January 1997 and 1 November 2018 were extracted from a database. The SCAR score (range: 0–100) was calculated by combining items from ISNCSCI and SCIM.
Mean (95%CI) improvement in volitional motor function was of 17.2 (CI: 14.5–19.9) equal to an improvement of 43% from baseline after median 155 days in-hospital rehabilitation. Individuals with tetraplegia exerted larger improvement (mean difference of 8.9 (CI: 3.6–14.2) points) as compared to paraplegia. Male gender predicted better improvement (p < 0.03), as did no need for mechanical ventilation with a gain of 8.5 (CI: 1.8–15.3) points as compared to those in need.
Overall mean improvement of 43% in volitional motor function was found in 84 in-hospitalized patients using SCAR as a metric at a highly-specialized SCI unit. Following factors; level-of-injury, gender, age, need of ventilation support predicted improvement in volitional motor function after a rehabilitation period. Results should be cautiously interpreted as a majority of hospitalized patients did not fulfill criteria for SCAR scoring. Prospectively designed studies with better internal validation and external validations are needed to confirm these findings.
Access optionsAccess options
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $30.08 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Bickenbach J. Weltgesundheitsorganisation, editors. International perspectives on spinal cord injury. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013. p. 231.
Biering-Sørensen F. Rygmarvsskade—den moderne behandling. Ugeskr Læg. 2001;163:2766–9.
Rupp R, Gerner HJ. Neuroprosthetics of the upper extremity-clinical application in spinal cord injury and challenges for the future. Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2007;97(Pt 1):419–26.
Popa C, Popa F, Grigorean VT, Onose G, Sandu AM, Popescu M, et al. Vascular dysfunctions following spinal cord injury. J Med Life. 2010;3:275–85.
Biering-Sørensen E, Pedersen V, Clausen S. Epidemiology of spinal cord lesions in Denmark. Paraplegia . 1990;28:105–18.
Reed R, Mehra M, Kirshblum S, Maier D, Lammertse D, Blight A, et al. Spinal cord ability ruler: an interval scale to measure volitional performance after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2017;55:730–8.
Ditunno JF. The John Stanley Coulter Lecture. Predicting recovery after spinal cord injury: a rehabilitation imperative. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80:361–4.
DeVivo MJ, Biering-Sørensen F, New P, Chen Y. International Spinal Cord Injury Data Set. Standardization of data analysis and reporting of results from the International Spinal Cord Injury Core Data Set. Spinal Cord. 2011;49:596–9.
Harvey LA. The Spinal Cord Ability Ruler (SCAR): combining aspects of two widely-used outcome measures into one. Spinal Cord. 2018;56:413–413.
Lammertse D, Tuszynski MH, Steeves JD, Curt A, Fawcett JW, Rask C, et al. Guidelines for the conduct of clinical trials for spinal cord injury as developed by the ICCP panel: clinical trial design. Spinal Cord. 2007;45:232–42.
Biering-Sørensen F, DeVivo MJ, Charlifue S, Chen Y, New PW, Noonan V, et al. International Spinal Cord Injury Core Data Set (version 2.0)—including standardization of reporting. Spinal Cord. 2017;55:759–64.
Sipski ML, Jackson AB, Gómez-Marín O, Estores I, Stein A. Effects of gender on neurologic and functional recovery after spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85:1826–36.
Greenwald BD, Seel RT, Cifu DX, Shah AN. Gender-related differences in acute rehabilitation lengths of stay, charges, and functional outcomes for a matched sample with spinal cord injury: a multicenter investigation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:1181–7.
Scivoletto G, Morganti B, Molinari M. Sex-related differences of rehabilitation outcomes of spinal cord lesion patients. Clin Rehabil. 2004;18:709–13.
Lee BA, Leiby BE, Marino RJ. Neurological and functional recovery after thoracic spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 2016;39:67–76.
McKinley WO, Huang ME, Tewksbury MA. Neoplastic vs. traumatic spinal cord injury: an inpatient rehabilitation comparison. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;79:138–44.
McKinley WO, Seel RT, Gadi RK, Tewksbury MA. Nontraumatic vs. traumatic spinal cord injury: a rehabilitation outcome comparison. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;80:693–9. 716
Mckinley WO, Tewksbury MA, Mujteba NM. Spinal stenosis vs traumatic spinal cord injury: a rehabilitation outcome comparison. J Spinal Cord Med. 2002;25:28–32.
Scivoletto G, Farchi S, Laurenza L, Molinari M. Traumatic and non-traumatic spinal cord lesions: an Italian comparison of neurological and functional outcomes. Spinal Cord. 2011;49:391–6.
Marinho AR, Flett HM, Craven C, Ottensmeyer CA, Parsons D, Verrier MC. Walking-related outcomes for individuals with traumatic and non-traumatic spinal cord injury inform physical therapy practice. J Spinal Cord Med. 2012;35:371–81.
Scivoletto G, Tamburella F, Laurenza L, Torre M, Molinari M. Who is going to walk? A review of the factors influencing walking recovery after spinal cord injury. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8:141.
Kaminski L, Cordemans V, Cernat E, M’Bra KI, Mac-Thiong J-M. Functional outcome prediction after traumatic spinal cord injury based on acute clinical factors. J Neurotrauma. 2017;34:2027–33.
We would like to thank Prof. John Steeves at The University of British Columbia and Vancouver Coastal Health, for his assistance in the conversion of raw SCAR data.
This work was funded by Health Research Fund of Central Denmark Region.
Statement of ethics
We certify that all applicable institutional and governmental regulations concerning the ethical use of human volunteers were followed during the course of this study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.