Epidemiology and Imaging Classification of Pediatric Cervical Spine Injuries: 12-Year Experience at a Level 1 Trauma Center

2020 ◽  
Vol 214 (6) ◽  
pp. 1359-1368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas M. Beckmann ◽  
Naga R. Chinapuvvula ◽  
Xu Zhang ◽  
O. Clark West
Radiology ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 213 (1) ◽  
pp. 203-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard W. Katzberg ◽  
Philip F. Benedetti ◽  
Christiana M. Drake ◽  
Marija Ivanovic ◽  
Richard A. Levine ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (7_suppl3) ◽  
pp. 2325967121S0008
Author(s):  
Bram P Verhofste ◽  
Daniel J Hedequist ◽  
Craig M Birch ◽  
Emily S Rademacher ◽  
Michael P Glotzbecker ◽  
...  

Background: Sports-related cervical spine injuries (CSI) are devastating traumas with the potential for permanent disability. There is a paucity of literature on operative CSI sustained in youth athletes. Hypothesis/Purpose: The aims of this study aims were to review injury characteristics, surgical treatment, and outcomes of severe pediatric CSI encountered in youth sports. Methods: We reviewed children less than 18 years old with operative sports-related CSI at a pediatric Level 1 pediatric trauma center between 2004−2019. All cases underwent modern cervical spine instrumentation and fusion. SCI were stratified according to the American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (ASIA). Clinical, radiographic, and surgical characteristics were compared between groups of patients with and without spinal cord injury (SCI). Results: Three thousand two hundred and thirty-one children (mean, 11.3y±4.6y) were evaluated for CSI at our institution during the 16-year period. The majority of traumas resulted from sports/recreational activities and were seen in 1365 cases (42.3%). Of these, 171/1365 patients (12.5%) were admitted and 29/1365 patients (2.1%) required surgical intervention (mean age, 14.5y±2.88y; range, 6.4y–17.8y). Sports included: eight football (28%), seven wrestling (24%), five gymnastics (17%), four diving (14%), two trampoline (7%), one hockey (3%), one snowboarding (3%), and one biking injury (3%). Mechanisms were 19 hyperflexion (65%), eight axial loading (28%), and two hyperextension injuries (7%). The majority of operative CSI were fractures (79%) and/or subaxial defects (72%). Seven patients (30%) sustained SCI and three patients (10%) spinal cord contusion or myelomalacia without neurologic deficits. The risk of SCI increased with age (15.8y vs. 14.4y; p=0.03) and axial loading mechanism (71% vs. 14%; p=0.003). Postoperatively, two SCI patients (29%) improved 1 ASIA Grade and one (14%) improved 2 ASIA Grades. Increased complications developed in SCI than patients without SCI (mean, 2.0 vs 0.1 complications; p=0.02). Clinical and radiographic fusion occurred in 24/26 patients (92%) with adequate follow-up (median, 32 months). Ten patients returned to their previous activity and nine to sports with a lower level of activity. Conclusion: The overall incidence of sports-related operative CSI is low. Age- and gender discrepancies exist, with male adolescent athletes most commonly requiring surgery. Hyperflexion injuries had a good prognosis; however, older males with axial loading CSI sustained in contact sports were at greatest risk of SCI, complications, and permanent disability. [Figure: see text][Table: see text][Table: see text]


2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 607-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul S. Page ◽  
Zhikui Wei ◽  
Nathaniel P. Brooks

OBJECTIVEMotorcycle helmets have been shown to decrease the incidence and severity of traumatic brain injury due to motorcycle crashes. Despite this proven efficacy, some previous reports and speculation suggest that helmet use is associated with a higher likelihood of cervical spine injury (CSI). In this study, the authors examine 1061 cases of motorcycle crash victims who were treated during a 5-year period at a Level 1 trauma center to investigate the association of helmet use with the incidence and severity of CSI. The authors hypothesized that wearing a motorcycle helmet during a motorcycle crash is not associated with an increased risk of CSI and may provide some protective advantage to the wearer.METHODSThe authors performed a retrospective review of all cases in which the patient had been involved in a motorcycle crash and was evaluated at a single Level 1 trauma center in Wisconsin between January 1, 2010, and January 1, 2015. Biometric, clinical, and imaging data were obtained from a trauma registry database. The patients were then divided into 2 distinct groups based on whether or not they were wearing helmets at the time of the accident. Baseline and functional characteristics were compared between the 2 groups. The Student t-test was used for continuous variables, and Pearson’s chi-square analysis was used for categorical variables.RESULTSIn total, 1061 patient charts were examined containing data on 738 unhelmeted (69.6%) and 323 helmeted (30.4%) motorcycle riders. On average, helmeted riders had a much lower Injury Severity Score (p < 0.001). Cervical spine injury occurred in 114 unhelmeted riders (15.4%) compared with only 24 helmeted riders (7.4%) (p < 0.001), with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.3 (95% CI 1.44–3.61, p = 0.0005). In the unhelmeted group, 10.8% of patients were found to have a cervical spine fracture compared with only 4.6% of patients in the helmeted group (p = 0.001). Additionally, ligamentous injury occurred more frequently in unhelmeted riders (1.9% vs 0.3%, p = 0.04). No difference was found in the occurrence of cervical strain, cord contusion, or nerve root injury (all p > 0.05).CONCLUSIONSThe results of this study demonstrate a statistically significant lower likelihood of suffering a CSI among helmeted motorcyclists. Unhelmeted riders sustained a statistically significant higher number of vertebral fractures and ligamentous injuries. The study findings reported here confirm the authors’ hypothesis that helmet use does not increase the risk of developing a cervical spine fracture and may provide some protective advantage.


2004 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 122-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony M. Avellino ◽  
Fred A. Mann ◽  
M. Sean Grady ◽  
Jens R. Chapman ◽  
Richard G. Ellenbogen ◽  
...  

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.


1986 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
John H. Harris ◽  
Beth Edeiken-Monroe ◽  
Dennis R. Kopaniky

1997 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 215-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Argenson ◽  
F. de Peretti ◽  
A. Ghabris ◽  
P. Eude ◽  
J. Lovet ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document