COMPARISON OF DELAYED VERSUS EARLY SURGICAL DECOMPRESSION FOR TRAUMATIC SPINAL CORD INJURY

Despite the increasing advocacy for early surgery, significant variability persists in clinical practice. This inconsistency stems from conflicting evidence in the literature, with some studies reporting substantial neurological benefits from early intervention, while others find no significant difference compared to delayed surgery. Similarly, in our institute, both early and delayed decompressions are in practice, whichever considered suitable by the experts. But no study has done to date that compare the outcome of both techniques. Given these gaps, there is a pressing need for a comprehensive evaluation of the existing evidence to determine the optimal timing of surgical intervention for acute traumatic SCI especially among our local population where past evidence is scarce. So, this study seeks to contribute to this critical discourse by systematically evaluating the impact of early versus delayed surgical decompression on clinical outcomes in our local population. The study would not only add evidence to the global and local data but would also help the surgeons to choose the better technique in future as the technique with better outcome would be preferred in future among all the local patients who will present to our hospital with acute SCI. Adopting the treatment strategy with better outcome would also help to reduce the overall morbidity associated with a cute SCI in our local population.

Finally objectives are , to compare the outcome of early versus delayed surgical decompression among patients presenting with traumatic spinal cord injury in a tertiary care hospital.