scholarly journals Subaxial Cervical Spine Trauma – Some insights about The New Classification System proposed by the AO Spine Study Group

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (6) ◽  
pp. 466-467
Author(s):  
Ot醰io Turolo da Silva ◽  
◽  
Andrei Fernandes Joaquim
Injury ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. S36-S43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul M. Arnold ◽  
Mark Bryniarski ◽  
Joan K. McMahon

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 77S-88S ◽  
Author(s):  
Srikanth N. Divi ◽  
Gregory D. Schroeder ◽  
F. Cumhur Oner ◽  
Frank Kandziora ◽  
Klaus J. Schnake ◽  
...  

Study Design: Narrative review. Objectives: To describe the current AOSpine Trauma Classification system for spinal trauma and highlight the value of patient-specific modifiers for facilitating communication and nuances in treatment. Methods: The classification for spine trauma previously developed by The AOSpine Knowledge Forum is reviewed and the importance of case modifiers in this system is discussed. Results: A successful classification system facilitates communication and agreement between physicians while also determining injury severity and provides guidance on prognosis and treatment. As each injury may be unique among different patients, the importance of considering patient-specific characteristics is highlighted in this review. In the current AOSpine Trauma Classification, the spinal column is divided into 4 regions: the upper cervical spine (C0-C2), subaxial cervical spine (C3-C7), thoracolumbar spine (T1-L5), and the sacral spine (S1-S5, including coccyx). Each region is classified according to a hierarchical system with increasing levels of injury or instability and represents the morphology of the injury, neurologic status, and clinical modifiers. Specifically, these clinical modifiers are denoted starting with M followed by a number. They describe unique conditions that may change treatment approach such as the presence of significant soft tissue damage, uncertainty about posterior tension band injury, or the presence of a critical disc herniation in a cervical bilateral facet dislocation. These characteristics are described in detail for each spinal region. Conclusions: Patient-specific modifiers in the AOSpine Trauma Classification highlight unique clinical characteristics for each injury and facilitate communication and treatment between surgeons.


Author(s):  
Brian K. Kwon ◽  
Alexander R. Vaccaro ◽  
Jonathan N. Grauer ◽  
Charles G. Fisher ◽  
Marcel F. Dvorak

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 321-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sameer B. Raniga ◽  
Venugopal Menon ◽  
Khamis S. Al Muzahmi ◽  
Sajid Butt

2002 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Regis W. Haid ◽  
Kevin T. Foley ◽  
Gerald E. Rodts ◽  
Bryan Barnes

The authors review historical and biomechanical aspects of anterior cervical plate (ACP) systems. They propose a novel classification system for ACPs based on the biomechanical and graft-loading properties of these systems. A retrospective review of the literature comprising both clinical and laboratory investigations regarding the ACP system was undertaken. Comparison of each system is considered in the context of the biomechanical attributes and graft-loading properties of each type of plate. Salient characteristics reviewed include restriction of screw backout, screw-angle variability, and mobility at the screw–plate interface. A new classification system for ACPs is proposed that primarily considers the ability of the construct to restrict screw backout, as well as the properties of the plate–screw interface—that is, the capacity for rotational or translational movement. A new classification system is presented that provides unified, biomechanically descriptive nomenclature. Using this nomenclature, the ACP devices currently available and those developed in the future can be uniformly categorized.


Cureus ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick L Hitti ◽  
Brendan J Mcshane ◽  
Andrew I Yang ◽  
Cole Rinehart ◽  
Ahmed Albayar ◽  
...  

Spine ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. S228-S234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alpesh A. Patel ◽  
R. John Hurlbert ◽  
Christopher M. Bono ◽  
Jason T. Bessey ◽  
Nuo Yang ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Anna Kiskämper ◽  
Carolin Meyer ◽  
Lars Müller ◽  
Peer Eysel ◽  
Hildegard Christ ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Subaxial cervical spine injury especially in the elderly can be associated to severe complications and disability. Until today there is no consensus concerning the best operative treatment. A potential superiority of anterior or posterior fixation is the subject of controversial discussions. Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of anterior and posterior fixation after subaxial cervical spine trauma in the elderly focussing on the postoperative mortality. Material and Methods A retrospective cohort analysis was performed to analyse the data of 43 patients. Especially mortality data were collected. Results A total of 43 patients was identified. Anterior fixation was performed in 21 patients, posterior fixation was performed in 22 patients. There were no significant differences between these groups. Although statistical significance was not reached, a slightly higher mortality was found among patients undergoing anterior fixation (52,4 vs. 31,8%). Furthermore the male sex, a higher age, translation injuries, long duration of operation and hospitalisation as well as postoperative complications were slightly associated to a higher mortality. Conclusions Subaxial cervical spine trauma is associated to a high mortality in the elderly. Although neither anterior nor posterior fixation could show a significant superiority, every surgical decision making should be performed individually for each patient balancing the advantages and disadvantages of each method.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document