scholarly journals SURGICAL TREATMENT OF CERVICAL SPINE INJURIES BY PRIMARY STABLE FIXATION WITH METAL CONSTRUCTIONS

2006 ◽  
pp. 008-018
Author(s):  
Stepan Timofeyevich Vetrile ◽  
Aleksandr Ilyich Krupatkin ◽  
Sergey Viktorovich Yundin
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Vertebral Body ◽  
High Efficiency ◽  
Lower Cervical Spine ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
First Case ◽  
Halo Traction ◽  
Spine Injuries ◽  
Neurovascular Structures

Objective. To study efficiency of primary stable metal constructions and halo-vest for lower cervical spine injuries. Material and Methods. Experience in surgical treatment of 62 patients with various injuries of lower cervical spine has been analyzed and summarized. The patients were grouped according to two main factors causing the injured spine dysfunction: dislocation damages (dislocations, fracture-dislocations), in which compression of neurovascular structures and disturbance of spine support ability are caused by vertebra dislocation; and vertebral body fractures (compression, compression-splintered) in which the compression and disturbance are arising from vertebral body destruction. In the first case a reduction of dislocated vertebra by various methods depending on the duration and rigidity of the injury was performed. In the second case a destroyed vertebral body was resected with subsequent stabilization. Results. The choice of surgical tactics with use of modern metal fixation devices was substantiated for treatment of lower cervical spine injuries. Indications for the application of anterior and posterior stabilizing constructions were determined considering a compression direction of neurovascular structures and a degree of destruction of the spine support columns. An algorithm of surgical treatment was suggested basing on a principle of damage reposition irrespective of injury duration. High efficiency of Halo-traction for treatment of lower cervical spine injuries was proved and its most effective application (combination with various methods of internal fixation) was determined. Conclusion. The application of primary stable metal devices in combination with halo fixation is a method of choice for treatment of lower cervical spine injuries.

Surgical Treatment of the Unstable Lower Cervical Spine Injuries

1990 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duck Yun Cho ◽  
Jai Gon Seo ◽  
Sung Nam Baek ◽  
Key Yong Kim ◽  
Yung Tae Kim
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
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

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document