ArticleCureus2024
Open Reduction in Traumatic Cervical Facet Dislocation Does Not Delay Time to Treatment.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of surgical timing on the outcomes of traumatic cervical spinal cord injury.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Cervical facet dislocation is a serious injury that can result in permanent neurologic damage. Current guidelines recommend immediate closed reduction of cervical dislocations, though the efficacy of this practice remains a debate. This study aims to evaluate whether immediate open reduction and fixation of cervical dislocations offer equal or better outcomes for patients and limit the need for follow-up operations. Methods This is a retrospective study including patients who presented to the emergency department of a single institution from 2008 to 2023 with cervical facet dislocation. Patients were divided into groups based on initial treatment: either open or closed reduction. Time to surgery was calculated as the time between arrival to the ED and incision time in the OR. Primary outcomes were improvement in motor and sensory deficits at six-week post-operative follow-up. Results There were 31 patients who met the inclusion criteria. Time to treatment did not differ significantly between the open versus closed reduction groups. There were no differences between groups in improvement in motor function, sensory function, or pain at the six-week follow-up. All patients treated with initial closed reduction ultimately required surgical stabilization. Conclusions Open reduction as a first-line treatment did not increase the time to treatment for patients with cervical facet dislocations. Patients had equivalent functional outcomes in both treatment groups. The findings suggest that current practice guidelines may delay definitive treatment without improving patient safety or outcomes.
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.