Table 9.

Average Lower-Extremity Motor Score Improvement in Persons with Complete Paraplegia within One Year

Authors/year	NLI	Timing of initial exam	Timing of follow-up exam	Sample size (N)	Mean LEMS change
35Waters et al. 1992	T2–L2	30 d	1 y	142*	T2–T8 = 0* T9–L2 = 7.8*
8Marino et al. 1999a	Paraplegia	≤7 d	1 y	NR	2.6 ± 7.3
57Coleman et al. 2004b	Thoracic	≤72 h	26 w	143	0.6
78Fisher et al. 2005	T1–L2	NR	37.8 ± 19.8 m	40	1.3
56Fawcett et al. 2007b	Thoracic	≤72 h	1 y	133	4.5 ± 11.2
60Curt et al. 2008c	Paraplegia	≤40 d	48 w	123	3.0
88Pouw et al. 2011	T2–T11	0–40 d	6 m–1 y	61	2.3
41Zariffa et al. 2011c	T2–T12	≤30 d	48 w	122	2.76 ± 7.12
	T2–T5			34	0.09 ± 0.51
	T6–T9			41	2.02 ± 6.67
	T10–T12			47	5.34 ± 9.05
61Lee et al. 2016a	T2–T9	≤7 d	1 y	194	1.5 ± 7.5
	T10–T12				4.1 ± 8.4
74Wilson et al. 2018d	T1–L1	≤7 d	1 y	22	1.5
			> 1 y	13	5.1
			Last follow-up (mean 8 m)	42	2.5

Bolded lines represent all levels, with subdivisions from that study listed below.

NLI, neurological level of injury; LEMS, lower-extremity motor score; NR, not reported.

^aSpinal Cord Injury Model Systems database.

^bSygen database.

^cEuropean Multicenter Study about Spinal Cord Injury database.

^dNorth American Clinical Trials Network registry.

^*-Score represents LEMS change of persons who remained neurologically complete at one year.