ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2025
MRI-Based Surgical Planning for Irreducible Subaxial Cervical Fracture-Dislocation With Bilateral Locked Facet Joints: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2025. 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.
- [Eccentric kyphotic distraction reduction technique for treatment of lower cervical dislocation with locked facet joints].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2025Article
- Optimizing surgical strategies for subaxial cervical fracture-dislocation: a facet and disc injury-based approach.Frontiers in surgery · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveSubaxial cervical fracture-dislocation with bilateral locked facet joints represents a critical spinal injury. The management of this condition remains a subject of debate, particularly regarding the optimal surgical approach. This study aims to introduce a quantified indicator to guide surgical decision-making and to assess its safety in clinical practice.
methodsWe retrospectively compared 62 patients treated according to the Spinal Cord Buffer Space (SCBS) criteria with 63 patients treated before SCBS was introduced. Briefly, SCBS was measured on preoperative MRI to quantitatively assess whether sufficient buffer space exists for the spinal cord, ensuring that a posterior reduction can be performed without causing iatrogenic spinal cord injury. The neural status was assessed with the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) impairment scale. Local sagittal alignment was evaluated at the dislocation level. Fisher's exact test and independent t-test were used to compare the parameters between the two groups.
resultsSurgical planning according to SCBS is relatively safe, with no patient experiencing neurologic deterioration after operation (p = 0.014). Forty-two patients with preoperative grade E on ASIA had no postoperative changes. Thirteen patients with preoperative grade D recovered to grade E after surgery, while 7 patients remained grade D but reported improved limb function. In comparison, 63 patients were treated before SCBS was introduced. Among 47 patients with preoperative grade E, 43 patients remained grade E while 4 patients were downgraded to grade D. For 16 patients with preoperative grade D, there were 2 patients with postoperative grade C, 6 patients with postoperative grade D, and 8 patients with postoperative grade E. No loosening, displacement, or breakage of the implants was observed in both groups during the follow-up.
conclusionsSCBS is a reliable and quantified indicator for surgical planning, and can significantly reduce the incidence rate of iatrogenic neurologic deterioration. For patients with a positive SCBS, posterior reduction can be safely performed. In contrast, for patients with a negative SCBS, anterior decompression should be prioritized.
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.