Delayed presentation of lower cervical facet dislocations: What to learn from past reports?

Delayed presentation of lower cervical facet dislocations is uncommon, and there is no standardized way to approach these neglected injuries. The literature on neglected lower cervical facet dislocations is limited to case reports and few retrospective studies. This justifies the need for a comprehensive review of this condition. Our purpose was to elaborate a review on the epidemiology, clinical and radiological presentation, and treatment techniques and approach to these neglected injuries. Middle-aged adults from 30 to 50 represent 73.8% of reported cases, and most of them are males (72.0%). The most affected level is C5-C6 (43.0%). While most delays are due to missed injuries (52.1%) and ineffective non-operative treatment (36.2%), the other reason for delay is negligence in seeking medical care (11.7%). Patients present with variable degrees of neurological deficit, persistent neck pain, and neck stiffness. Reported approaches and techniques to reduce and stabilize these injuries are highly variable and depend on the surgeon's judgment, experience, and preference. Fibrotic tissues and bony fusion around the dislocated facet joint contribute to the reduction challenge, and 77.0% of closed reduction attempts fail. Anterior and posterior approaches to the cervical spine are used selectively or in combination for surgical release, reduction, and stabilization. Despite the lack of standardized treatment guidelines and different approaches, most of the authors reported improvement in pain, balance, and neurology post-surgery. Starting with the posterior surgical approach aims to achieve reduction compared to the anterior approach which largely aims at spinal decompression. Given the existing controversies, the need for quality prospective studies to determine the best treatment approach for lower cervical facet dislocations presenting with delay is evident.

Description and Reliability of the AOSpine Sacral Classification System.

BACKGROUND: Several classification systems exist for sacral fractures; however, these systems are primarily descriptive, are not uniformly used, have not been validated, and have not been associated with a treatment algorithm or prognosis. The goal of the present study was to demonstrate the reliability of the AOSpine Sacral Classification System among a group of international spine and trauma surgeons. METHODS: A total of 38 sacral fractures were reviewed independently by 18 surgeons selected from an expert panel of AOSpine and AOTrauma members. Each case was graded by each surgeon on 2 separate occasions, 4 weeks apart. Intrarater reproducibility and interrater agreement were analyzed with use of the kappa statistic (κ) for fracture severity (i.e., A, B, and C) and fracture subtype (e.g., A1, A2, and A3). RESULTS: Seventeen reviewers were included in the final analysis, and a total of 1,292 assessments were performed (646 assessments performed twice). Overall intrarater reproducibility was excellent (κ = 0.83) for fracture severity and substantial (κ = 0.71) for all fracture subtypes. When comparing fracture severity, overall interrater agreement was substantial (κ = 0.75), with the highest agreement for type-A fractures (κ = 0.95) and the lowest for type-C fractures (κ = 0.70). Overall interrater agreement was moderate (κ = 0.58) when comparing fracture subtype, with the highest agreement seen for A2 subtypes (κ = 0.81) and the lowest for A1 subtypes (κ = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, the present study is the first to describe the reliability of the AOSpine Sacral Classification System among a worldwide group of expert spine and trauma surgeons, with substantial to excellent intrarater reproducibility and moderate to substantial interrater agreement for the majority of fracture subtypes. These results suggest that this classification system can be reliably applied to sacral injuries, providing an important step toward standardization of treatment.

Instrumented circumferential fusion for tuberculosis of the dorso-lumbar spine. A single or double stage procedure?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to present our experience in treating dorso-lumbar tuberculosis by one-stage posterior circumferential fusion and to compare this group with a historical group treated by anterior debridement followed by postero-lateral fusion and stabilization. METHODS: Between 2003 and 2008, 32 patients with active spinal tuberculosis were treated by one-stage posterior circumferential fusion and prospectively followed for a minimum of two years. Pain severity was measured using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Neurological assessment was done using the Frankel scale. The operative data, clinical, radiological, and functional outcomes were also compared to a similar group of 25 patients treated with anterior debridement and fusion, followed 10-14 days later by posterior stabilization and postero-lateral fusion. RESULTS: The mean operative time and duration of hospital stay were significantly longer in the two-stage group. The mean estimated blood loss was also larger, though insignificantly, in the two-stage group. The incidence of complications was significantly lower in the one-stage group. At final follow-up, all 34 patients with pre-operative neurological deficits showed at least one Frankel grade of neurological improvement, all 57 patients showed significant improvement of their VAS back pain score, the mean kyphotic angle has significantly improved, all patients achieved solid fusion and 43 (75.4%) patients returned to their pre-disease activity level or work. CONCLUSION: Instrumented circumferential fusion, whether in one or two stages, is an effective treatment for dorso-lumbar tuberculosis. One-stage surgery, however, is advantageous because it has lower complication rate, shorter hospital stay, less operative time and blood loss.