scholarly journals A study on functional outcome following surgical fixation for subaxial cervical spine injuries

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2i) ◽  
pp. 590-595
Author(s):  
Dr. TC Premkumar ◽  
Dr. Pathiarasakumar
Author(s):  
M. Sivakumar ◽  
M. Ganesh Kumar

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Cervical spine injuries are one of the common causes of serious morbidity mortality following trauma. 6% of trauma patients have spine injuries of which &gt;50% is contributed by a cervical spine injury. The aim of the study was to determine the functional outcome following surgical fixation for sub-axial cervical spine.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> this prospective study involving 17 patients who were all admitted with sub-axial cervical spine injuries and amenable to intervention in our department of orthopedics and traumatology, government Theni medical college, Tamil Nadu, India in the year 2019-2020. Duration of 6 months from December 2019 to may 2020.<strong></strong></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> Most of the injuries presented within 24 hours of injury. Most of the patients presented with an incomplete neurological deficit. C5-C6 subluxation with disc bulge was the most common spinal injury. 5 patients were operated on more than 2 levels. The rest of the patients were operated on at 2 levels.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions:</strong> We consider that the anterior decompression and fusion with a locking compression plate is a viable procedure in sub-axial cervical spine injuries.</p>


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