STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. PURPOSE: To outline the etiology, complications and management difficulties encountered in the management of neglected thoracolumbar spine injuries. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: The English literature describes overlooked diagnosis as the most common cause of neglected spine injuries. However, the reasons differ in developing or under-developed nations. Moreover, there is scarcity of literature about the neglected spinal injuries. METHODS: Patients presenting with thoracolumbar traumatic injuries who had not received any form of treatment for more than three weeks were included in the study. The demographic details, operative procedure performed and complications encountered, along with American Spinal Injury Association grade and spinal cord independence measure score recorded on the history sheets were noted. The data were analyzed. RESULTS: Forty patients were included in the study. Inadequate treatment at the first contact hospital (45%) followed by late presentation (38%) and missed injury (17%) were the major etiological factors for the neglected traumatic injuries in the thoracolumbar spine. The most common complications seen in the management of these cases were pressure sores (58%), back pain (57%), urinary tract infection (42%) and residual kyphotic deformity (42%). CONCLUSIONS: Management of neglected thoracolumbar injuries is challenging. The delay in presentation should not prevent spine surgeon in proceeding with operative intervention as good results can be expected.
Back Pain ; Congenital Abnormalities ; Developing Countries ; Diagnosis ; Humans ; Neglected Diseases ; Pressure Ulcer ; Retrospective Studies ; Spinal Cord ; Spinal Cord Injuries ; Spinal Fractures ; Spinal Injuries ; Spine* ; Surgical Procedures, Operative ; Urinary Tract Infections

Methods: In a double-blinded setup, 124 patients randomly received either of the following injections: 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine, 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine mixed with 2 mg dexamethasone, or plain 2% lidocaine mixed with 2 mg dexamethasone, which were injected as a primary IANB. Ten minutes after injection, patients with profound lip numbness underwent electric and thermal pulp sensibility tests. Patients who responded positively to the tests were categorized as “failed” anesthesia and received supplemental anesthesia. The remaining patients underwent endodontic treatment using a rubber dam. Anesthetic success was defined as “no pain or faint/weak/mild pain” during endodontic access preparation and instrumentation (HP visual analog scale score < 55 mm). The effect of the anesthetic solutions on the maximum change in heart rate was also evaluated. The Pearson chi-square test at 5% and 1% significance was used to analyze anesthetic success rates. Results: The 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine, 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine mixed with 2 mg dexamethasone, and plain 2% lidocaine mixed with 2 mg dexamethasone groups had anesthetic success rates of 34%, 59%, and 29%, respectively. The addition of dexamethasone resulted in significantly better results (P < 0.001, χ 2 = 9.07, df = 2). Conclusions The addition of dexamethasone to 2% lidocaine with epinephrine, administered as an IANB, can improve the anesthetic success rates during the endodontic management of symptomatic mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis.