Anterior metal plate fixation in the treatment of unstable lower cervical spine injuries

1989 ◽  
Vol 98 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 55-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. M. Shoung ◽  
L. S. Lee
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Plate Fixation ◽  
Metal Plate ◽  
Lower Cervical Spine ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Spine Injuries

Treatment of Unstable Lower Cervical Spine Injuries by Anterior Instrumented Fusion Alone

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 500-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elias Lambiris ◽  
Georgios B. Kasimatis ◽  
Minos Tyllianakis ◽  
Panagiotis Zouboulis ◽  
Elias Panagiotopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Lower Cervical Spine ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Instrumented Fusion ◽  
Spine Injuries

The Treatment of Concomitant Odontoid Fracture and Lower Cervical Spine Injuries

Spine ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (19) ◽  
pp. E693-E698 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fangcai Li ◽  
Qixin Chen ◽  
Kan Xu
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Odontoid Fracture ◽  
Lower Cervical Spine ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Spine Injuries

Anterior instrumentation in thetreatment of lower cervical spine injuries

1996 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander R. Vaccaro ◽  
Todd J. Albert ◽  
Jerome M. Cotler
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Lower Cervical Spine ◽  
Anterior Instrumentation ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Spine Injuries

Internal Metal Plate Fixation Combined with Anterior Interbody Fusion in Cases of Cervical Spine Injury

Neurosurgery ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 649-653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfonso M. Bremer ◽  
Tai Q. Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Plate Fixation ◽  
Early Mobilization ◽  
Metal Plate ◽  
Spine Injury ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Modified Method ◽  
Anterior Interbody Fusion ◽  
Block Bone Graft

Abstract The authors report their experience with the use of a modified method of internal metal plate fixation combined with anterior interbody fusion in six patients with an unstable lower cervical spine. All of the patients had sustained severe cervical spine injuries in accidents. In most of the cases, the operation was carried out at 1 to 4 weeks after injury. The insertion of the metal plate was very simple and maintained the block bone graft in satisfactory position. This alternative method of internal fixation of the cervical spine was not associated with morbidity, allowed very early mobilization, and shortened the hospital stay.

Xeroradiography in evaluation of cervical spine injuries

1978 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 620-621
Author(s):  
Norman D. Peters ◽  
George Ehni
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Lower Cervical Spine ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Spine Injuries ◽  
Fine Print

✓ Xeroradiography is a useful tool in the evaluation of fractures and dislocation of the lower cervical spine. It affords clear visualization with minimal manipulation or risk.

scholarly journals Currently available classification systems for lower cervical spine injuries. Part 1. Overview of the most popular scales and classifications

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. A. Grin ◽  
I. S. Lvov ◽  
S. L. Arakelyan ◽  
A. E. Talypov ◽  
A. Yu. Kordonsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Classification System ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Scoring Systems ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Spine Injury ◽  
Lower Cervical Spine ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Spine Injuries

This article provides a detailed illustrated description of currently available classification and scoring systems for lower cervical spine injuries (including Allen–Fergusson, J. Harris et al., C. Argenson et al., and AOSpine classifications, Subaxial Injury Classification System and Cervical Spine Injury Severity Score). The present review primarily aims to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each classification system. 

scholarly journals CURRENTLY AVAILABLE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS FOR LOWER CERVICAL SPINE INJURIES. PART 2. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF STUDIES ON THE RELIABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY OF EXISTING SCALES

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 28-38
Author(s):  
А. А. Grin ◽  
I. S. Lvov ◽  
S. L. Arakelyan ◽  
А. E. Talypov ◽  
А. Yu. Kordonsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Classification System ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Lower Cervical Spine ◽  
Study Objective ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Spine Injuries ◽  
Injury Classification

The study objective is to review the Russian and foreign studies and to identify an optimal classification system for lower cervical spine injuries. Materials and methods. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We conducted a search for articles published in English (PubMed database) and Russian (eLIBRARY.ru). The inclusion criteria were as follows: available full text, patient age ≥18 years, and information on one of the validation phases for classifications according to L. Audige et al. Results. A total of 30 articles were eligible. Of them, 3 studies were published in Russian (by one group of authors); however, they didn’t contain required statistical parameters and had duplicated data; therefore, they were excluded from the analysis. Out of 27 articles published in English, 8 articles met all the criteria and were included into the systematic review. The AOSpine and Subaxial Injury Classification Systems demonstrated the highest reliability and reproducibility of the results. The Allen–Fergusson classification has lower intraobserver and interobserver agreement coefficients, but it can give a clearer visual representation of injuries. We also assessed J. Harris classification system. The reliability of the scale developed by С. Argenson et al. was not evaluated. The analyzed publications contained no data for full evaluation of the Cervical Spine Injury Severity Score. Our analysis clearly demonstrated the need for a more thorough evaluation of all available scales and classifications. This study should be multicenter and involve experts with different levels of experience (from residents to experienced spinal surgeons). Moreover, it should analyze not only the reproducibility of individual classifications, but also the aspects of learning and the relationship between individual scales and systems. The main study limitations included insufficient number of publications, small sample sizes, heterogeneity of groups, and differences in the experience of experts. Conclusion. The AOSpine and Subaxial Injury Classification Systems are the most reliable classification systems. However, the data available in literature is not sufficient for a full comparison of all existing scales and systems. Further multicenter studies on the reliability of classifications are needed to select an optimal one.

Lower cervical spine injuries

2012 ◽  
pp. 376-385
Author(s):  
Vincent J. Devlin ◽  
John C. Steinmann ◽  
Paul A. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Lower Cervical Spine ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Spine Injuries

Classification of lower cervical spine injuries

1997 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 215-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Argenson ◽  
F. de Peretti ◽  
A. Ghabris ◽  
P. Eude ◽  
J. Lovet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Lower Cervical Spine ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Spine Injuries
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document