Subaxial Cervical Spine CT

2022 ◽  
pp. 107-113
Author(s):  
Michael L. Martini ◽  
Sean N. Neifert ◽  
Jonathan J. Rasouli ◽  
Thomas E. Mroz
2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. S107-S108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Woojin Cho ◽  
Jason Le ◽  
Adam Shimer ◽  
Brian Werner ◽  
Michael Iwanik ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
Shankar Gopinat

Acute cervical facet fractures are increasingly being detected due to the use of cervical spine CT imaging in the initial assessment of trauma patients. For displaced cervical facet fractures with dislocations and subluxations, early surgery can decompress the spinal cord and stabilize the spine. For patients with non-displaced cervical facet fractures, the challenge in managing these patients is the determination of spinal stability. Although many of the patients with non-displaced cervical facet fractures can be managed with a cervical collar, the imaging needs to be analyzed carefully since certain fracture patterns may be better managed with early surgical stabilization.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan K Leclair ◽  
Joshua Knopf ◽  
Michael Baldwin ◽  
Faripour Forouhar ◽  
Hilary Onyiuke

CJEM ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (02) ◽  
pp. 131-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hendrik P. Van Zyl ◽  
James Bilbey ◽  
Alan Vukusic ◽  
Todd Ring ◽  
Jennifer Oakes ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Objective: Emergency physicians are expected to rule out clinically important cervical spine injuries using clinical skills and imaging. Our objective was to determine whether emergency physicians could accurately rule out clinically important cervical spine injuries using computed tomographic (CT) imaging of the cervical spine. Method: Fifteen emergency physicians were enrolled to interpret a sample of 50 cervical spine CT scans in a nonclinical setting. The sample contained a 30% incidence of cervical spine injury. After a 2-hour review session, the participants interpreted the CT scans and categorized them into either a suspected cervical spine injury or no cervical spine injury. Participants were asked to specify the location and type of injury. The gold standard interpretation was the combined opinion of two staff radiologists. Results: Emergency physicians correctly identified 182 of the 210 abnormal cases with cervical spine injury. The sensitivity of emergency physicians was 87% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82–91), and the specificity was 76% (95% CI 74–77). The negative likelihood ratio was 0.18 (95% CI 0.12–0.25). Conclusion: Experienced emergency physicians successfully identified a large proportion of cervical spine injuries on CT; however, they were not sufficiently sensitive to accurately exclude clinically important injuries. Emergency physicians should rely on a radiologist review of cervical spine CT scans prior to discontinuing cervical spine precautions.


2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. e140-e144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert F. Murphy ◽  
Michael P. Glotzbecker ◽  
Michael T. Hresko ◽  
Daniel Hedequist

Spine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Shaoyi Lin ◽  
Minggui Bao ◽  
Zihan Wang ◽  
Xiaobao Zou ◽  
Su Ge ◽  
...  

Injury ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. S36-S43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul M. Arnold ◽  
Mark Bryniarski ◽  
Joan K. McMahon

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 891-899 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan J. Rasouli ◽  
Brooke T. Kennamer ◽  
Frank M. Moore ◽  
Alfred Steinberger ◽  
Kevin C. Yao ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVEThe C7 vertebral body is morphometrically unique; it represents the transition from the subaxial cervical spine to the upper thoracic spine. It has larger pedicles but relatively small lateral masses compared to other levels of the subaxial cervical spine. Although the biomechanical properties of C7 pedicle screws are superior to those of lateral mass screws, they are rarely placed due to increased risk of neurological injury. Although pedicle screw stimulation has been shown to be safe and effective in determining satisfactory screw placement in the thoracolumbar spine, there are few studies determining its utility in the cervical spine. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility, clinical reliability, and threshold characteristics of intraoperative evoked electromyographic (EMG) stimulation in determining satisfactory pedicle screw placement at C7.METHODSThe authors retrospectively reviewed a prospectively collected data set. All adult patients who underwent posterior cervical decompression and fusion with placement of C7 pedicle screws at the authors’ institution between January 2015 and March 2019 were identified. Demographic, clinical, neurophysiological, operative, and radiographic data were gathered. All patients underwent postoperative CT scanning, and the position of C7 pedicle screws was compared to intraoperative neurophysiological data.RESULTSFifty-one consecutive C7 pedicle screws were stimulated and recorded intraoperatively in 25 consecutive patients. Based on EMG findings, 1 patient underwent intraoperative repositioning of a C7 pedicle screw, and 1 underwent removal of a C7 pedicle screw. CT scans demonstrated ideal placement of the C7 pedicle screw in 40 of 43 instances in which EMG stimulation thresholds were > 15 mA. In the remaining 3 cases the trajectories were suboptimal but safe. When the screw stimulation thresholds were between 11 and 15 mA, 5 of 6 screws were suboptimal but safe, and in 1 instance was potentially dangerous. In instances in which the screw stimulated at thresholds ≤ 10 mA, all trajectories were potentially dangerous with neural compression.CONCLUSIONSIdeal C7 pedicle screw position strongly correlated with EMG stimulation thresholds > 15 mA. In instances, in which the screw stimulates at values between 11 and 15 mA, screw trajectory exploration is recommended. Screws with thresholds ≤ 10 mA should always be explored, and possibly repositioned or removed. In conjunction with other techniques, EMG threshold testing is a useful and safe modality in determining appropriate C7 pedicle screw placement.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document