scholarly journals Observational retrospective study of subaxial cervical spine trauma at tertiary care centre

2022 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 306-310
Author(s):  
Gajbhare Sunil Venkati ◽  
Ayushman Satpaty ◽  
Nityanand Pandey ◽  
Ravi Shankar Prasad

The aim of this study is to compare between various treatment modalities available for treatment of subaxial cervical spine injuries due to trauma A total of 172 patients of subaxial cervical spine injuries were assessed retrospectively about their mode of injury, clinical course, definitive treatment given and its outcome. As the study was Descriptive and retrospective in nature involving only patient case files, statistical test is not applied to the study In our study 44 patients suffered from vertebral body fracture while 108 patients had spinal canal compromise due to other injuries. 16 patients had quadriplegia, 24 patients had grade 4 power in upper and lower extremities, and roots were involved in 46 patients. In 44 patients complete corpectomy was performed with placement of tricorticate graft taken from fibula, this graft was fixed in place with titanium plate and four screws.From this study it can be concluded that Patients treated with anterior approach had better outcome in relation to the fixation and fusion of the spine, reconstruction is more better in anterior approach.

2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 136-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert F. Murphy ◽  
Austin R. Davidson ◽  
Derek M. Kelly ◽  
William C. Warner ◽  
Jeffrey R. Sawyer

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 843
Author(s):  
Ankit Madan ◽  
Manoj Thakur ◽  
Sachin Sud ◽  
Vaibhav Jain ◽  
RudraPratap Singh Thakur ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-10
Author(s):  
Oleksii S. Nekhlopochyn ◽  
Ievgenii I. Slynko ◽  
Vadim V. Verbov

Cervical spine injuries are a fairly common consequence of mechanical impact on the human body. The subaxial level of the cervical spine accounts for approximately half to 2/3 of these injuries. Despite the numerous classification systems that exist for describing these injuries, the recommendations for treatment strategy are very limited, and currently none of them is universal and generally accepted. Consequently, treatment decisions are based on the individual experience of the specialist, but not on evidence or algorithms. While the classification system based on the mechanism of trauma originally proposed by B.L. Allen et al. and subsequently modified by J.H. Harris Jr et al., was comprehensive, but lacked evidence, which to some extent limited its clinical applicability. Similarly, the Subaxial Injury Classification System proposed by the Spine Trauma Group, had no distinct and clinically significant patterns of morphological damage. This fact hindered the standardization and unification of tactical approaches. As an attempt to solve this problem, in 2016 Alexander Vaccaro, together with AO Spine, proposed the AO Spine subaxial cervical spine injury classification system, using the principle of already existing AOSpine classification of thoracolumbar injuries. The aim of the project was to develop an effective system that provides clear, clinically relevant morphological descriptions of trauma patterns, which should contribute to the determination of treatment strategy. The proposed classification of cervical spine injuries at the subaxial level follows the same hierarchical approach as previous AO classifications, namely, it characterizes injuries based on 4 parameters: (1) injury morphology, (2) facet damage, (3) neurological status, and (4) specific modifiers. The morphology of injuries is divided into 3 subgroups of injuries: A (compression), B (flexion-distraction), and C (dislocations and displacements). Damage types A and B are divided into 5 (A0-A4) and 3 (B1-B3) subtypes, respectively. When describing damage of the facet joints, 4 subtypes are distinguished: F1 (fracture without displacement), F2 (unstable fracture), F3 (floating lateral mass) and F4 (dislocation). The system also integrates the assessment of neurological status, which is divided into 6 subtype). In addition, the classification includes 4 specific modifiers designed to better detail a number of pathological conditions. The performance evaluation of AOSpine SCICS showed a moderate to significant range of consistency and reproducibility. Currently, a quantitative scale for assessing the severity of classification classes has been proposed, which also, to a certain extent, contributes to decision-making regarding treatment strategy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document