ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2023
A Novel Classification of Cervical Spine Trauma in Ankylosing Spondylitis and Corresponding Surgical Outcomes.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of cervical fractures in ankylosing spondylitis: a ten-year systemic review of surgical and nonsurgical outcomes.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- Esophageal Injury in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis After Cervical Spine Trauma: Our Case Series and Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Evaluation of the effect of cervical spine bone distribution on fixation in ankylosing spondylitis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of exercise intervention in relieving symptoms of ankylosing spondylitis: A network meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCurrently, there are no reports on the specific classification of cervical spine trauma (CST) in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) based on the trauma mechanism. In this study, we aimed to describe a novel classification of CST in AS with more details, and put forward the corresponding surgical outcomes related to different types, hoping to provide a practical reference for clinical decision-making and academic communication.
methodsFrom January 2008 to December 2021, AS patients who experienced CST were retrospectively reviewed and included. Clinical data including gender, age, reason of trauma, time interval between AS diagnosis and trauma were collected. The American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) grade system was used to describe patients' neurological status. Based on the combination of surgical experience and follow-up observation, the lower cervical spine trauma in AS patients was divided into three main types, namely single level fracture-dislocation (type 1), spinal cord injury without fracture-dislocation (type 2), and Andersson lesion (type 3). Furthermore, we performed detailed subtypes according to whether cervical spine was completely fused and the location of injury. Meanwhile, according to different approaches, surgical methods mainly included Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF), Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion (ACCF), Posterior Expansive Open-door Cervical Laminoplasty (PEOLP), Posterior Cervical Laminectomy Decompression and Fusion (PCLDF), and their combination. Postoperative general and surgery-related complications were also recorded.
resultsA total of 102 patients were enrolled, including 91 males and 11 females, with an average age of 51.9 years. Their average interval time between AS diagnosis and injury was 27.8 years. Patients with high-energy and low-energy trauma were 54 and 48 respectively. There were 79 patients suffering spinal cord nerve impairment after trauma. With regard to the distribution of different types, the number of patients in type 1, type 2, and type 3 were 86, 14, and two, respectively. For different types, PCLDF was the most commonly used surgical method, accounting for 55.9%, while ACCF was only applied for one time. In type 1, the frequencies of ACDF, ACCF, PCLDF, and ACDF+PCLDF were 10.5%, 1.2%, 55.8%, and 32.5%. In type 2, the frequencies of ACDF, PCLDF, ACDF+PCLDF, and PEOLP were 7.1%, 50.0%, 7.1%, 35.8%. Postoperatively, 21 patients achieved neurological function improvement. The incidences of general and surgery-related complications were 19.6% and 5.9%, respectively. All patients achieved bone fusion and durable decompression at the last follow-up.
conclusionsOur novel classification could enrich the scope of CST in AS patients and provide valuable references to the corresponding clinical management. Besides, there are strict indications of different surgical methods, factors like patient's physical condition, trauma type, surgical purpose, and expected efficacy were all required to consider before making a clinical decision.
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.