RESUMO
Around a third of all cervical spine injuries occur in the upper cervical spine in the area between the occiput and the second cervical vertebra. The latter being the most common location of the injury with around 70%. But also atlas fractures, occipital condyle fractures, traumatic spondylolisthesis of C2, atypical fractures in the corpus area as well as atlantooccipital and atlantoaxial ligamentous lesions should be mentioned in connection with injuries in this area. In many cases, conservative therapy regimen is possible. In unstable or displaced injuries, however, surgical intervention is required, with various surgical procedures being used. The frequency, diagnostics, classification, and standard therapy of the individual entities are presented in detail in this continuing medical education article.
Assuntos
Vértebras Cervicais , Fraturas da Coluna Vertebral , Humanos , Vértebras Cervicais/lesões , Vértebras Cervicais/diagnóstico por imagem , Vértebras Cervicais/cirurgia , Fraturas da Coluna Vertebral/diagnóstico por imagem , Fraturas da Coluna Vertebral/classificação , Fraturas da Coluna Vertebral/cirurgia , Fraturas da Coluna Vertebral/terapia , Fraturas da Coluna Vertebral/diagnóstico , Fusão Vertebral/métodos , Traumatismos da Coluna Vertebral/classificação , Traumatismos da Coluna Vertebral/diagnóstico por imagem , Traumatismos da Coluna Vertebral/diagnóstico , Traumatismos da Coluna Vertebral/cirurgia , Traumatismos da Coluna Vertebral/terapia , Espondilolistese/cirurgia , Espondilolistese/diagnóstico por imagem , Espondilolistese/classificaçãoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Open reduction and plate fixation is a standard procedure for treating traumatic symphyseal disruptions, but has a high incidence of implant failure. Several studies have attempted to identify predictors for implant failure and discussed its impact on functional outcome presenting conflicting results. Therefore, this study aimed to identify predictors of implant failure and to investigate the impact of implant failure on pain and functional outcome. METHODS: In a single-center, retrospective, observational non-controlled cohort study in a level-1 trauma center from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2017, 42 patients with a plate fixation of a traumatic symphyseal disruption aged ≥ 18 years with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were included. The following parameters were examined in terms of effect on occurrence of implant failure: age, body mass index (BMI), injury severity score (ISS), polytrauma, time to definitive treatment, postoperative weight-bearing, the occurrence of a surgical site infection, fracture severity, type of posterior injury, anterior and posterior fixation. A total of 25/42 patients consented to attend the follow- up examination, where pain was assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale and functional outcome using the Majeed Pelvic Score. RESULTS: Sixteen patients had an anterior implant failure (16/42; 37%). None of the parameters studied were predictive for implant failure. The median follow-up time was six years and 8/25 patients had implant failure. There was no difference in the Numerical Rating Scale, but the work-adjusted Majeed Pelvic Score showed a better outcome for patients with implant failure. CONCLUSION: implant failure after symphyseal disruptions is not predictable, but appears to be clinically irrelevant. Therefore, an additional sacroiliac screw to prevent implant failure should be critically discussed and plate removal should be avoided in asymptomatic patients.
RESUMO
Injuries to the rigid spine have a distinguished position in the broad spectrum of spinal injuries due to altered biomechanical properties. The rigid spine is more prone to fractures. Two ossification bone disorders that are of particular interest are Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) and Diffuse Idiopathic Skeletal Hyperostosis (DISH). DISH is a non-inflammatory condition that leads to an anterolateral ossification of the spine. AS on the other hand is a chronic inflammatory disease that leads to cortical bone erosions and spinal ossifications. Both diseases gradually induce stiffening of the spine. The prevalence of DISH is age-related and is therefore higher in the older population. Although the prevalence of AS is not age-related the occurrence of spinal ossification is higher with increasing age. This association with age and the aging demographics in industrialized nations illustrate the need for medical professionals to be adequately informed and prepared. The aim of this narrating review is to give an overview on the diagnostic and therapeutic measures of the ankylosed spine. Because of highly unstable fracture configurations, injuries to the rigid spine are highly susceptible to neurological deficits. Diagnosing a fracture of the ankylosed spine on plain radiographs can be challenging. Moreover, since 8% of patients with ankylosing spine disorders (ASD) have multiple non-contagious fractures, a CT scan of the entire spine is highly recommended as the primary diagnostic tool. There are no consensus-based guidelines for the treatment of spinal fractures in ASD. The presence of neurological deficit or unstable fractures are absolute indications for surgical intervention. If conservative therapy is chosen, patients should be monitored closely to ensure that secondary neurologic deterioration does not occur. For the fractures that have to be treated surgically, stabilization of at least three segments above and below the fracture zone is recommended. These fractures mostly are treated via the posterior approach. Patients with AS or DISH share a significant risk for complications after a traumatic spine injury. The most frequent complications for patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures are respiratory failure, pseudoarthrosis, pneumonia, and implant failure.
RESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Reliability study utilizing 183 injury CT scans by 22 spine trauma experts with assessment of radiographic features, classification of injuries and treatment recommendations. OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability of the AOSpine TL Injury Classification System (TLICS) including the categories within the classification and the M1 modifier. METHODS: Kappa and Intraclass correlation coefficients were produced. Associations of various imaging characteristics (comminution, PLC status) and treatment recommendations were analyzed through regression analysis. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used for making predictive algorithms. RESULTS: Reliability of the AO Spine TLICS at differentiating A3 and A4 injuries (N = 71) (K = .466; 95% CI .458 - .474; P < .001) demonstrated moderate agreement. Similarly, the average intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) amongst A3 and A4 injuries was excellent (ICC = .934; 95% CI .919 - .947; P < .001) and the ICC between individual measures was moderate (ICC = .403; 95% CI .351 - .461; P < .001). The overall agreement on the utilization of the M1 modifier amongst A3 and A4 injuries was fair (K = .161; 95% CI .151 - .171; P < .001). The ICC for PLC status in A3 and A4 injuries averaged across all measures was excellent (ICC = .936; 95% CI .922 - .949; P < .001). The M1 modifier suggests respondents are nearly 40% more confident that the PLC is injured amongst all injuries. The M1 modifier was employed at a higher frequency as injuries were classified higher in the classification system. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of surgeons differentiating between A3 and A4 injuries in the AOSpine TLICS is substantial and the utilization of the M1 modifier occurs more frequently with higher grades in the system.
RESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVES: To compare decision-making between an expert panel and real-world spine surgeons in thoracolumbar burst fractures (TLBFs) without neurological deficits and analyze which factors influence surgical decision-making. METHODS: This study is a sub-analysis of a prospective observational study in TL fractures. Twenty two experts were asked to review 183 CT scans and recommend treatment for each fracture. The expert recommendation was based on radiographic review. RESULTS: Overall agreement between the expert panel and real-world surgeons regarding surgery was 63.2%. In 36.8% of cases, the expert panel recommended surgery that was not performed in real-world scenarios. Conversely, in cases where the expert panel recommended non-surgical treatment, only 38.6% received non-surgical treatment, while 61.4% underwent surgery. A separate analysis of A3 and A4 fractures revealed that expert panel recommended surgery for 30% of A3 injuries and 68% of A4 injuries. However, 61% of patients with both A3 and A4 fractures received surgery in the real world. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that a 1% increase in certainty of PLC injury led to a 4% increase in surgery recommendation among the expert panel, while a .2% increase in the likelihood of receiving surgery in the real world. CONCLUSION: Surgical decision-making varied between the expert panel and real-world treating surgeons. Differences appear to be less evident in A3/A4 burst fractures making this specific group of fractures a real challenge independent of the level of expertise.