SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kocaeli Tıp Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 2

Retrospectıve Evaluatıon of Our Surgıcal Approach and Treatment Results in Subaxıal Cervıcal Spıne Injury

Subaksial Servikal Omurga Yaralanmalarında Cerrahi Yaklaşımımız ve Tedavi Sonuçlarımızın Retrospektif Değerlendirilmesi

Durmuş Oğuz KARAKOYUN
Ali YILMAZ
Hasan Serdar IŞIK
Oğuzhan UZLU
Pages
33–38
Publication Date
2022-11-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Facet joints should be carefully evaluated in terms of fractures in SCT and 360° fusion should be performed in the presence of radiological findings suggesting that the stabilization is insufficient.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:INTRODUCTION: Objective: The aim of the study is to evaluate the treatment management applied to the cases operated by a single spinal surgeon for Subaxial cervical trauma (SCT) according to the Subaxial cervical spine injury classification (SLIC) and AOSpine criteria, and to analyze the clinical and radiological results of the cases retrospectively.
📊
Key Findings & Data:METHODS: The clinical and radiological results of 9 patients who were operated for SCT in our clinic between 2019-2020 were evaluated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Facet joints should be carefully evaluated in terms of fractures in SCT and 360° fusion should be performed in the presence of radiological findings suggesting that the stabilization is insufficient.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2019-2020 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Objective: The aim of the study is to evaluate the treatment management applied to the cases operated by a single spinal surgeon for Subaxial cervical trauma (SCT) according to the Subaxial cervical spine injury classification (SLIC) and AOSpine criteria, and to analyze the clinical and radiological results of the cases retrospectively. METHODS: The clinical and radiological results of 9 patients who were operated for SCT in our clinic between 2019-2020 were evaluated. RESULTS: The age distribution of the cases was between 18 and 74 (mean = 46.2). The follow-up period of the cases was 5-27 (mean = 17.3) months. When the trauma levels were examined, it was seen that there were lesions at the C5-C6 level in 7 (77.8 %) cases and at the C6-C7 level in 2 (22.2 %) cases. The SLIC scores of the cases were in the range of 5-9 (mean =6.4). When the preoperative American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) scores of the cases were examined, it was seen that it was A in 2 cases, C in 4 cases, and D in 3 cases. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: SCT are pathologies with high morbidity and mortality risk. By performing decompression with anterior, posterior or combined approaches, spinal stability and neurological recovery can be achieved. Facet joints should be carefully evaluated in terms of fractures in SCT and 360° fusion should be performed in the presence of radiological findings suggesting that the stabilization is insufficient.

Özet

GİRİŞ ve AMAÇ: Çalışmanın amacı Subaksiyel servikal travma (SST) nedeniyle tek bir omurga cerrahı tarafından ameliyat edilen olgulara uygulanan tedavi yönetimini Subaxiyel ServikalTravma Klasifikasyonu (SLIC) ve AOSpine klasifikasyon kriterlerine göre değerlendirmek ve olguların klinik ve radyolojik sonuçlarını geriye dönük olarak incelemektir YÖNTEM ve GEREÇLER: 2019-2020 yılları arasında kliniğimizde SST nedeniyle opere edilen 9 hastanın klinik ve radyolojik sonuçları değerlendirildi. BULGULAR: Olguların yaş dağılımı 18 ile 74 arasındaydı (ortalama = 46,2). Olguların takip süresi 5-27 (ortalama = 17.3) ay idi. Travma düzeyleri incelendiğinde 7 (%77.8) olguda C5-C6 düzeyinde, 2 olguda (%22.2) C6-C7 düzeyinde lezyonlar olduğu görüldü. Olguların SLIC puanları 5-9 (ortalama =6.4) aralığındaydı. Olguların ameliyat öncesiAmerikan Omurga Derneği Sınıflama (ASIA)skorları incelendiğinde 2 olguda A, 4 olguda C, 3 olguda D olduğu görüldü. TARTIŞMAve SONUÇ: SSTyüksek morbidite ve mortalite riski olan patolojilerdir.Anterior, posterior veya kombine yaklaşımlarla dekompresyon yapılarak spinal stabilite ve nörolojik iyileşme sağlanabilir. SST’de faset eklemler kırık açısından dikkatle değerlendirilmeli ve stabilizasyonun yetersiz olduğunu düşündüren radyolojik bulguların varlığında 360° füzyon yapılmalıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARAKOYUN, D. O., YILMAZ, A., IŞIK, H. S., UZLU, O. (2022). Retrospectıve Evaluatıon of Our Surgıcal Approach and Treatment Results in Subaxıal Cervıcal Spıne Injury. Kocaeli Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 2, 33–38. https://ajindex.com/articles/652952

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Canseco JA, Schroeder GD, Paziuk TM, Karamian BA, Kandziora F, Vialle EN, et al. The Subaxial Cervical AO Spine Injury Score. Global Spine Journal. December 2020.
  2. Feuchtbaum E, Buchowski J, Zebala L. Subaxial cervical spine trauma. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016;9(4):496- 504.
  3. Shen Y, Shen HL, FengML, ZhangWB. Immediate reduction under general anesthesia and single-staged anteroposterior spinal reconstruction for fracture-dislocation of lower cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28(1):1-8.
  4. Aebi M. Surgical treatment of upper, middle and lower cervical injuries and non-unions by anterior procedures. Eur Spine J. 2010;19 (1):33-S39.
  5. Cao BH, Wu ZM, Liang JW. Risk Factors for Poor Prognosis of Cervical Spinal Cord Injury with Subaxial Cervical Spine Fracture-DislocationAfter Surgical Treatment:ACONSORT Study. Med Sci Monit. 2019;25:1970-1975. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.915700 6.6. Allen BL Jr, Ferguson RL, Lehmann TR, O’Brien RP. A mechanistic classification of closed, indirect fractures and dislocations of the lower cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa1976). 1982;7(1):1-27. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198201000-00001 7.Harris JH Jr, Edeiken-Monroe B, Kopaniky DR. A practical classification of acute cervical spine injuries. Orthop Clin North Am. 1986;17(1):15-30.
  6. Vaccaro AR, Hulbert RJ, Patel AA, Fisher C, Dvorak M, Lehman Jr RA et al. The subaxial cervical spine injury classification system: a novel approach to recognize the importance of morphology, neurology, and integrity of the disco-ligamentous complex. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(21):2365-2374.
  7. Samuel S, Lin JL, Smith MM, Hartin NL, Vasili C, Ruff SJ, et al. Subaxial injury classification scoring system treatment recommendations: external agreement study based on retrospective review of 185 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(3):137-142. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000666 10.Joaquim AF, Lawrence B, Daubs M, Brodke D, Patel AA. Evaluation of the subaxial injury classification system. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2011;2(2):67-72.
  8. Feuchtbaum E, Buchowski J, Zebala L. Subaxial cervical spine trauma. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016;9(4):496-504. https://do