ArticleJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine
Subaxial cervical spine fractures with facet joint dislocation: Surgical management, technique, and results in a retrospective series of 36 patients.
Article in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Subaxial cervical spine fractures with facet dislocation are burdened by a high risk of neurological impairment. The surgical management of this severe clinical condition is poorly standardized, concerning the role of closed reduction and the use of anterior, posterior, or circumferential approaches. We performed a retrospective evaluation of our series to assess the safety and efficacy of our surgical strategy. Materials and Methods: Transcranial traction was progressively applied, followed by anterior decompression and arthrodesis. Whether adequate reduction was not obtained with traction, or in case of comminution of the posterior elements, a combined posterior-anterior approach was undertaken. In addition, we report the use of intraoperative ultrasound for the assessment of neural decompression. Results: A total of 36 patients were treated in this series. The most frequently affected level was C6-C7 (14/36), and motor-vehicle accident was the most common mechanism of injury (20/36). According to AO Spine Subaxial Classification, C-F4 was the main type of lesion (25/36). The anterior approach was effective in 21 out of 36 cases, whereas a combined approach was needed in 12/36. Three patients were operated on only posteriorly. Frankel grade at follow-up was unchanged in 27/36, ameliorated in 6, and 3 patients died within 14 days. Conclusion: The anterior approach resulted to be sufficient in more than 50% of patients, and our findings corroborate the usefulness of closed traction. Posterior and circumferential stabilization were reserved for irreducible dislocations or substantial destruction of the posterior elements. Among patients initially treated anteriorly, a second operation was necessary in only two cases.
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.