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.

Posterior cervical fusion in children

1976 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joe M. McWhorter ◽  
Eben Alexander ◽  
Courtland H. Davis ◽  
David L. Kelly
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Neurological Deficit ◽  
The Other ◽  
Congenital Absence ◽  
Cervical Fusion ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Spine Injuries ◽  
Posterior Cervical Fusion ◽  
Fine Print

✓ Six cases of posterior cervical fusion with rib grafts in children are reported. Four of the children had sustained cervical spine injuries in accidents, and two had congenital absence of the odontoid. Three-level fusions (C1–3) were done in four children, and four-level fusions (C1–4) in two. One child died of unrelated causes 3 months after the operation. The other five children have been followed for 5 to 13 years. All are doing well and each has a remarkably supple, stable neck and no neurological deficit.

Pediatric cervical spine injuries: report of 102 cases and review of the literature

2000 ◽  
Vol 92 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammed A. Eleraky ◽  
Nicholas Theodore ◽  
Mark Adams ◽  
Harold L. Rekate ◽  
Volker K. H. Sonntag
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Retrospective Clinical Study ◽  
Spine Injuries ◽  
Cervical Injuries ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Fine Print ◽  
Group 1

Object. To evaluate and review their experience with pediatric cervical injuries and factors affecting outcome, the authors conducted a retrospective clinical study of 102 cases (65% boys, 35% girls) of pediatric cervical spine injuries treated in the last decade. This study is an extension of and comparison with their earlier experience. Methods. Patients were divided into two age groups—birth to 9 years (Group 1) and 10 to 16 years of age (Group 2)—and managed according to status at presentation and type of injury. Thirty patients were managed surgically and 72 nonsurgically (42 wore a halo brace and 30 wore hard collars or custom-molded braces). Motor vehicle accidents were the most common cause of injury, and 40% were associated with head injury. Patients in the younger-age group (Group 1) sustained more neurological injuries than the older patients in Group 2, and most injuries were in the upper cervical spine. Of the 38 children in Group 1, in 39% a subluxation was present and in 29% a fracture or fracture/subluxation was demonstrated. Of the patients in Group 2, 80% had sustained fractures or fracture/subluxations. Vertebral fractures were the most common radiological findings (32%). At late follow-up review (mean 5 years), solid fusions were demonstrated in all patients. Neurological deterioration did not occur in any patient. The mortality rate was 16%. Compared with the authors' earlier report, the incidence of cases with pediatric cervical injuries increased, as did the number managed surgically. Various fusion techniques were used, and neurological and fusion outcomes improved as compared with the previous report. Conclusions. The prognosis of neurological recovery from pediatric cervical spine injuries is related to the severity of the initial neurological injury. Management must be tailored to the patient's age, neurological status, and type and level of injury. Compared with our earlier experience, fusion and instrumentation procedures were used more frequently. Different types of fusion and instrumentation procedures can be performed safely in children and produce good outcomes.

Cervical spine injuries in infants

1975 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn M. Gaufin ◽  
Stanley J. Goodman
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Fracture Dislocation ◽  
Hangman’S Fracture ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Spine Injuries ◽  
Hangman's Fracture ◽  
Therapeutic Considerations ◽  
Fine Print ◽  
Posterior Elements

✓ The authors point out the unique anatomical and therapeutic considerations involved in injuries of the cervical spine and cord in infants. The special problems encountered in the treatment of such patients are illustrated by three cases, a “Hangman's” fracture, a C6–7 fracture-dislocation, and an acute quadriparesis associated with dysgenesis of the posterior elements of C1–3.

History of skeletal traction in the treatment of cervical spine injuries

1970 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
John D. Loeser
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Cervical Vertebrae ◽  
Spine Fractures ◽  
Skeletal Traction ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Spine Injuries ◽  
History Of ◽  
Cervical Spine Fractures ◽  
Fine Print

✓ Therapy of cervical spine fractures is reviewed from the time of the Egyptians (4000 B.C.) to the present day. Immobilization has been practiced for slightly more than a century; devices for exerting traction upon the skull have been in use for 37 years. The Renaissance surgeon, Fabricus Hildanus, designed a tool for exerting traction upon the cervical vertebrae, but this method did not become popular. Until the 20th century, few physicians considered the therapy of this common injury.

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

The Treatment of Concomitant Odontoid Fracture and Lower Cervical Spine Injuries

Spine ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (19) ◽  
pp. E693-E698 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fangcai Li ◽  
Qixin Chen ◽  
Kan Xu
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Odontoid Fracture ◽  
Lower Cervical Spine ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Spine Injuries

Anterior instrumentation in thetreatment of lower cervical spine injuries

1996 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander R. Vaccaro ◽  
Todd J. Albert ◽  
Jerome M. Cotler
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Lower Cervical Spine ◽  
Anterior Instrumentation ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Spine Injuries

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. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document