scholarly journals Subaxial cervical spine injuries: Outcomes after anterior corpectomy and instrumentation

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 843
Author(s):  
Ankit Madan ◽  
Manoj Thakur ◽  
Sachin Sud ◽  
Vaibhav Jain ◽  
RudraPratap Singh Thakur ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Subaxial Cervical Spine ◽  
Anterior Corpectomy ◽  
Spine Injuries

Subaxial Cervical Spine Injuries in Children and Adolescents

2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 136-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert F. Murphy ◽  
Austin R. Davidson ◽  
Derek M. Kelly ◽  
William C. Warner ◽  
Jeffrey R. Sawyer
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Subaxial Cervical Spine ◽  
Spine Injuries

scholarly journals The classifications of subaxial cervical spine traumatic injuries. Part 4. AOSpine Subaxial Classification System

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-10
Author(s):  
Oleksii S. Nekhlopochyn ◽  
Ievgenii I. Slynko ◽  
Vadim V. Verbov
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Treatment Strategy ◽  
Classification System ◽  
Neurological Status ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Subaxial Cervical Spine ◽  
Spine Injuries ◽  
Injury Classification

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.

Cervical spine injuries

2010 ◽  
pp. 276-286
Author(s):  
George Samandouras
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Occipital Condyle ◽  
Spine Fractures ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Occipital Condyle Fracture ◽  
Subaxial Cervical Spine ◽  
Spine Injuries ◽  
Condyle Fracture ◽  
Cervical Spine Fractures

Chapter 6.6 covers cervical spine injuries, including atlanto-occipital dislocation (AOD), occipital condyle fracture (OCF), fracture of the atlas: C1 (FOTA), fracture of the axis: C2 (FOAX), combination fractures: C1–C2, atlanto-axial instability (AAI), and subaxial cervical spine fractures.

scholarly journals Pediatric subaxial cervical spine injuries: origins, management, and outcome in 51 patients

2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seref Dogan ◽  
Sam Safavi-Abbasi ◽  
Nicholas Theodore ◽  
Eric Horn ◽  
Harold L. Rekate ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Spinal Cord Injuries ◽  
Motor Vehicle ◽  
Fracture Dislocation ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Vehicle Accidents ◽  
Subaxial Cervical Spine ◽  
Cervical Orthosis ◽  
Spine Injuries

Object In this study the authors evaluated the mechanisms and patterns of injury and the factors affecting management and outcome of pediatric subaxial cervical spine injuries (C3–7). Methods Fifty-one pediatric patients (38 boys and 13 girls; mean age 12.4 years, range 10 months–16 years) with subaxial cervical spine injuries were reviewed retrospectively. Motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) were the most common cause of injury. Overall, 12% presented with a dislocation, 63% with a fracture, 19% with a fracture–dislocation, and 6% with a ligamentous injury. The most frequently injured level was C6–7 (33%); C3–4 (6%) was least frequently involved. Sixty-four percent of patients were neurologically intact, 16% had incomplete spinal cord injuries (SCIs), 14% had complete SCIs, and three patients (6%) died after admission and before assessment. Treatment was conservative in 64%: seven (13%) wore a halo vest and 26 (51%) wore a rigid cervical orthosis. Surgery was performed in the other 18 patients (36%), with the breakdown as follows: 15 (30%) underwent an anterior approach, two (4%) had posterior approaches, and one (2%) had a combined approach. Postoperatively, four patients (8%) who had a neurological deficit improved. The overall mortality rate was 8%; all deaths were related to MVAs. There were no surgery-related deaths or complications. Conclusions Subaxial cervical spine injuries are common in children 9 to 16 years of age, and occur principally between C-5 and C-7. Multilevel injury is more common in children 8 years of age and older than in younger children and infants. Most patients with subaxial cervical spine injuries can be treated conservatively. Both anterior and posterior approaches are safe and effective.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document