Emergency Treatment of Cervical Vertebromedullary Trauma: 10 Years of Experience and Outcome Evaluation.

objectiveThe aim of the study is to identify and validate, through the recording of clinical and radiological data, the different surgical approaches and treatments valid for most subaxial cervical dislocation fractures and whether there is an advantage from using an anterior approach rather than a posterior approach and conversely.. MATERIAL AND

methodsA retrospective study was carried out analyzing the case history of the last 10 years of vertebromedullary traumas treated at the spine surgery unit of the Policlinico Gemelli in Rome. Data on surgical timing, American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) scores for neurological damage, and subsequent assessments on recovery, survival, and mortality were also examined.

resultsA total of 80 patients were treated: 50 by the posterior approach, 24 by the anterior approach, and six by the double approach. Our average follow-up time was 4.2 years. A prevalence of surgery with the posterior approach was noted. We observed the worsening of cervical kyphosis about 15 months after the trauma in two cases treated with the posterior approach alone. A second surgical treatment was performed in these patients. One of these patients underwent an anterior fusion; the other case underwent a posterior revision because the patient had ankylosing spondylitis. Although we found no statistically significant difference in outcomes between the various surgical treatments, in this retrospective study, we analyzed the characteristics and outcomes of cervical spine injuries that required surgical treatment.

conclusionThe aim of surgery in unstable cervical spine injuries should be to reduce and stabilize the damaged segment, maintain lordosis, and decompress when indicated. The optimal choice of surgical approach and treatment, or its superiority in terms of outcomes, remains a debated issue.