Injury to the spinal column and spinal cord occurs relatively infrequently in the pediatric population. A review of 174 pediatric patients is presented, representing 5.4% of all patients admitted with spinal injury. Spinal cord injury was present in 45% of patients. A distinct injury profile, explained by anatomical and biomechanical features, distinguishes the young patient with an immature spine from older adolescents with a more mature, adult-like spine. The younger patients, while less likely to have spinal injury, had a higher incidence of neurological injury, in addition to a higher frequency of both spinal cord injury without radiological abnormality and upper cervical cord injury. In addition, younger patients with spinal cord injury and no radiological abnormality were more likely to have complete or severe cord injury. Prognosis was determined by the severity of spinal cord injury. Patients with complete cord injuries showed little improvement, while patients with incomplete injuries generally fared much better, with 74% showing significant improvement and 59% experiencing a complete recovery of neurological functions. There were six deaths, but none was attributed solely to spinal injury. The authors conclude that outcome is quite good after pediatric spinal cord injury that does not produce a physiologically complete cord deficit.

No abstract

ObjectivesWe undertook a rapid systematic review with the aim of identifying evidence that could be used to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the clinical effectiveness of tests that detect the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to inform COVID-19 diagnosis? (2) What is the clinical effectiveness of tests that detect the presence of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus to inform COVID-19 diagnosis?Design and settingSystematic review and meta-analysis of studies of diagnostic test accuracy. We systematically searched for all published evidence on the effectiveness of tests for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus, or antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, up to 4 May 2020, and assessed relevant studies for risks of bias using the QUADAS-2 framework.Main outcome measuresMeasures of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive value) were the main outcomes of interest. We also included studies that reported influence of testing on subsequent patient management, and that reported virus/antibody detection rates where these facilitated comparisons of testing in different settings, different populations or using different sampling methods.Results38 studies on SARS-CoV-2 virus testing and 25 studies on SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing were identified. We identified high or unclear risks of bias in the majority of studies, most commonly as a result of unclear methods of patient selection and test conduct, or because of the use of a reference standard that may not definitively diagnose COVID-19. The majority were in hospital settings, in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection. Pooled analysis of 16 studies (3818 patients) estimated a sensitivity of 87.8% (95% CI 81.5% to 92.2%) for an initial reverse-transcriptase PCR test. For antibody tests, 10 studies reported diagnostic accuracy outcomes: sensitivity ranged from 18.4% to 96.1% and specificity 88.9% to 100%. However, the lack of a true reference standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis makes it challenging to assess the true diagnostic accuracy of these tests. Eighteen studies reporting different sampling methods suggest that for virus tests, the type of sample obtained/type of tissue sampled could influence test accuracy. Finally, we searched for, but did not identify, any evidence on how any test influences subsequent patient management.ConclusionsEvidence is rapidly emerging on the effectiveness of tests for COVID-19 diagnosis and management, but important uncertainties about their effectiveness and most appropriate application remain. Estimates of diagnostic accuracy should be interpreted bearing in mind the absence of a definitive reference standard to diagnose or rule out COVID-19 infection. More evidence is needed about the effectiveness of testing outside of hospital settings and in mild or asymptomatic cases. Implementation of public health strategies centred on COVID-19 testing provides opportunities to explore these important areas of research.

ETV is an effective treatment both in selected patients with newly diagnosed hydrocephalus and in patients with a previous shunting procedure who are presenting with malfunction. Complications of ETV occur more frequently in previously shunted patients than in patients treated for newly diagnosed hydrocephalus, and care must be taken in the selection and treatment of these patients.