ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025
Optimizing surgical strategies for subaxial cervical fracture-dislocation: a facet and disc injury-based approach.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the influence of facet joint and intervertebral disc injuries on surgical approach selection in subaxial cervical fracture-dislocation. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 150 patients with subaxial cervical fracture-dislocations, stratified by surgical approach: anterior (anterior-only or anterior-posterior) and posterior (posterior-only or posterior-anterior). Preoperative computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were assessed to identify injury patterns, and radiographic and clinical outcomes were compared before and after surgery. Results: The mean patient age was 48.84 ± 11.68 years, and 86.7% completed at least 12 months of follow-up. The anterior group exhibited significantly higher rates of unilateral facet injuries (53.5% vs. 18.4%), perched/separated facets (59.4% vs. 34.7%), F2-type fractures (46.5% vs. 2%), and disc extrusion (40.9% vs. 15.4%). In contrast, the posterior group had more locked facets (55.1% vs. 15.8%) and non-fracture dislocations (79.6% vs. 23.8%). Bilateral injuries were commonly associated with locked or separated facets and absence of fracture. Patients undergoing combined posterior-anterior surgery had greater incidence of bilateral facet involvement and disc protrusion. Spinal alignment significantly improved postoperatively in all groups ( Conclusion: Facet and disc injury patterns strongly affect surgical decision-making. Anterior approaches are preferable for disc extrusion or facet fractures, while posterior surgery is suited for locked facets without fractures. Accurate injury classification via imaging can guide individualized treatment and improve 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.