Citation

Goel A. J. Craniovertebr. Junction Spine 2022; 13(1): 1-3.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2022, Medknow Publications)

DOI

10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_24_22

PMID

35386251

PMCID

PMC8978847

Abstract

ssues related to spinal injury have been under discussion for several decades. Multiple forms of treatment that have been advocated range from surgical and nonsurgical drug treatment to stem-cell therapy.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7] All the known forms of treatment are focused to attempt to provide an opportunity of neurological recovery or at least some relief from otherwise crippling neurological symptoms and disabling deficits. Considering the high incidence of spinal cord injuries and its impact on the individual and the family and financial burden on the society, it is prudent that the scientific discussion on the subject and efforts to achieve the best clinical outcome continues with vigor.

The nature and timing of the surgical treatment is an intensely debated subject.[1] A uniform policy or strategy regarding the extent, need, and type of stabilization, decompression, and realignment continues to be discussed. It may be only fair to state that a defined pattern of treatment has not been identified, and discussion and confusion prevail on the subject.

Our observations on the subject suggest that the spinal bony canal is like a temple/mosque/church and the spinal cord is the deity. If the temple/mosque/church is broken or destroyed, a new construction can be initiated. However, if the deity itself is injured or harmed, there can be no therapeutic solution.

Our earlier observations, particularly in cases with spinal degeneration, included the fact that it is not neural compression or deformation that is the cause of neurological symptoms, but it is instability-related micro-injuries that initiate, propel, and manifest with neurological deficits...

Language: en