ArticleEmergency radiology2019
There has to be an easier way: facet fracture characteristics that reliably differentiate AOSpine F1 and F2 injuries.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- CT Scan in Subaxial Cervical Facet Injury: Is It Enough for Decision-Making?Global spine journal · 2023Article
- Accuracy and reliability of the AO Spine subaxial cervical spine classification system grading subaxial cervical facet injury morphology.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo identify morphologic features of isolated cervical spine facet fractures that can reliably differentiate AOSpine F1 and F2 injuries. MATERIALS AND
methodsRetrospective review of cervical spine CTs on all patients who sustained isolated cervical fractures of the facets presenting to our level 1 trauma center from August 2012 through December 2015. CTs were reviewed for facet fracture characteristics and AOSpine facet fracture classification. Association between facet fracture characteristics and AOSpine classification was assessed through multivariable logistic regression models.
resultsFifty-six patients with cervical spine fractures isolated to the facets were included in the study. The mean age was 36 (range 9-90) years with 55.4% (n = 31) males. A significant correlation was found between subtype F1 and subtype F2 in laterality (left- or right-sided) (p = 0.004), interfacetal fracture involvement (p < 0.0001), transverse process involvement (p < 0.001), displacement of fracture fragment (p < 0.001), comminution of fracture (p < 0.0001), and vertebral arch disruption (p = 0.001). After multivariable analysis, left side laterality (p = 0.03), transverse process involvement (p = 0.01), and fracture comminution (p = 0.003) were associated with F2 fractures.
conclusionFacet fractures with transverse process involvement or comminution have a higher probability of being an F2 fracture. These characteristics may be helpful when categorizing facet fractures using the AOSpine classification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.