Dear Sir, We read the important paper of Shamim et al.[5] about the question as to whether patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) benefit from spinal stabilization. We believe that the decision to perform spine surgery on patents with SCI should not be made only based on duration of hospital stay, economic issues, and neurological outcome.[4] However, we would emphasize the apparent advantage of non-operative management of SCI patients in developing countries. In Zahedan, a city located in a poor socioeconomic province of Iran, we managed 108 patients with SCI during a 12-year period from 1994 to 2005. Of these patients, 50 were followed for more than 12 months. Assessment of outcome of these patients not only confirmed superiority of non-surgical management in patients with complete SCI in terms of cost and duration of hospitalization, but also, surprisingly, showed that the neurological outcome of patients with incomplete SCI in the non-surgical group was not different from that of the surgical group. Length of stay in surgery group of SCI patients was 11.1 ± 5.46 days, which was significantly longer than 5.8 ± 0.96 days in non-surgical patients (P = 0.017). All groups of patients with incomplete SCI including those treated non-operatively, patients had early operation or cases underwent late surgery, had significant and similar improvement, when compared to the preoperative examination (P = 0.02), with no difference among these three groups.[2,3] Our results differ from those of the meta-analysis of La Rosa et al.,[1] which concluded neurological improvement after early decompression in incomplete SCI patients compared to late decompression or non-surgical management. In this meta-analysis, 26 studies were evaluated, all of which had been performed in developed countries, with no study from developing countries. The results of this meta-analysis is also different from the study performed by Shamim et al.,[5] which may indicate different outcome of spinal cord decompression in developed and developing countries. Despite the limitations of the study by Shamim et al.,[5] such as heterogeneous cohort of patients, inconsistent prednisolone prescription, late decompression in considerable number of patients, different surgical procedures, and lack of post-operative neurologic assessment of patients, it can be hypothesized that the country where surgery is performed (developing vs. developed countries) may have an effect on the outcome of SCI patients. Thus, results of some reports on favorable outcome of patients undergoing spinal decompression/stabilization from developed countries should be interpreted carefully if they are to be used in developing countries since many pre-, intra- and post-operative factors may contribute to the outcome of these patients. Further studies from developing countries should be performed to provide better guidance for spine surgeons in these countries to decide whether an SCI patient is likely to benefit from spinal decompression/stabilization or not.