脊柱下轴突骨折脱位的外科治疗:一项回顾性队列研究。

IF 2 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Josh Callaway, Hania Shahzad, Shannon Tse, Ashley Frei, Yashar Javidan, Rolando Roberto, Hai Le
{"title":"脊柱下轴突骨折脱位的外科治疗:一项回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Josh Callaway, Hania Shahzad, Shannon Tse, Ashley Frei, Yashar Javidan, Rolando Roberto, Hai Le","doi":"10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-25-00083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Facet fracture dislocations of the subaxial spine pose notable risks of neurologic injury and spinal instability. The optimal surgical approach-whether anterior-alone, posterior-alone, or combined anterior-posterior-remains debated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and long-term outcomes of these surgical approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis of patients presenting with cervical facet fractures at a single level I trauma center was conducted. They were divided into anterior-alone, posterior-alone, and combined AP surgical groups. Primary outcomes including preoperative neurologic status (American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] classification), intensive care unit stay, long-term neurologic recovery, and revision surgery rates were compared between patients undergoing each of these approaches.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 33 patients were included in the analysis. Bilateral dislocations were more common in the posterior group (87.5%) compared with the anterior group (50%). Anterior surgery was performed more frequently for C4-5 and C5-6 dislocations (57.1%). Patients with ASIA E were more likely to undergo anterior surgery while those with ASIA A-D tended to have combined or posterior approaches. The average intensive care unit stay was 8.9 days (median 3), 6.6 days (median 4), and 6.3 days (median 4) for anterior, posterior, and combined groups, respectively. Long-term neurologic recovery was observed in 28.6% of anterior patients, 12.5% of posterior patients, and 36.4% of combined patients. The anterior group had a higher revision surgery rate (14.3%; P = 0.284). Patients in the anterior group were most likely to be discharged home with minimal care requirements.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Anterior surgery is a particularly viable option for C4-5 and C5-6 dislocations in patients with minimal neurologic impairment. Combined AP surgery is more beneficial for bilateral C4-5 and C5-6 dislocations when severe neurologic deficits or other complex injuries necessitate greater stabilization. Posterior approaches may be preferable for complex bilateral dislocations, particularly at C6-7 and C7-T1, where anterior visualization is limited.</p>","PeriodicalId":45062,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Global Research and Reviews","volume":"9 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12063780/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surgical Management of Facet Fracture Dislocations of the Subaxial Spine: A Retrospective Cohort Study.\",\"authors\":\"Josh Callaway, Hania Shahzad, Shannon Tse, Ashley Frei, Yashar Javidan, Rolando Roberto, Hai Le\",\"doi\":\"10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-25-00083\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Facet fracture dislocations of the subaxial spine pose notable risks of neurologic injury and spinal instability. The optimal surgical approach-whether anterior-alone, posterior-alone, or combined anterior-posterior-remains debated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and long-term outcomes of these surgical approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis of patients presenting with cervical facet fractures at a single level I trauma center was conducted. They were divided into anterior-alone, posterior-alone, and combined AP surgical groups. Primary outcomes including preoperative neurologic status (American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] classification), intensive care unit stay, long-term neurologic recovery, and revision surgery rates were compared between patients undergoing each of these approaches.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 33 patients were included in the analysis. Bilateral dislocations were more common in the posterior group (87.5%) compared with the anterior group (50%). Anterior surgery was performed more frequently for C4-5 and C5-6 dislocations (57.1%). Patients with ASIA E were more likely to undergo anterior surgery while those with ASIA A-D tended to have combined or posterior approaches. The average intensive care unit stay was 8.9 days (median 3), 6.6 days (median 4), and 6.3 days (median 4) for anterior, posterior, and combined groups, respectively. Long-term neurologic recovery was observed in 28.6% of anterior patients, 12.5% of posterior patients, and 36.4% of combined patients. The anterior group had a higher revision surgery rate (14.3%; P = 0.284). Patients in the anterior group were most likely to be discharged home with minimal care requirements.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Anterior surgery is a particularly viable option for C4-5 and C5-6 dislocations in patients with minimal neurologic impairment. Combined AP surgery is more beneficial for bilateral C4-5 and C5-6 dislocations when severe neurologic deficits or other complex injuries necessitate greater stabilization. Posterior approaches may be preferable for complex bilateral dislocations, particularly at C6-7 and C7-T1, where anterior visualization is limited.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45062,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Global Research and Reviews\",\"volume\":\"9 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12063780/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Global Research and Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-25-00083\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/5/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Global Research and Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-25-00083","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:腰椎下轴突骨折脱位具有明显的神经损伤和脊柱不稳定风险。最佳的手术入路——是单纯的前路手术,还是单纯的后路手术,还是前后路联合手术——仍然存在争议。本研究的目的是评估这些手术入路的有效性、安全性和长期结果。方法:回顾性分析在单一一级创伤中心就诊的颈椎小关节骨折患者。将患者分为单纯前路、单纯后路和联合AP手术组。主要结局包括术前神经系统状态(美国脊髓损伤协会[ASIA]分类)、重症监护病房住院时间、长期神经系统恢复和翻修手术率。结果:共纳入33例患者。双侧脱位在后路组(87.5%)比前路组(50%)更常见。前路手术对C4-5和C5-6脱位更为常见(57.1%)。ASIA - E型患者更有可能接受前路手术,而ASIA - A-D型患者倾向于联合或后路手术。前路组、后路组和联合组的平均重症监护时间分别为8.9天(中位3天)、6.6天(中位4天)和6.3天(中位4天)。28.6%的前路患者、12.5%的后路患者和36.4%的合并患者的神经功能长期恢复。前路组翻修手术率较高(14.3%;P = 0.284)。前路组的患者最有可能出院回家,护理要求最低。结论:前路手术是治疗C4-5和C5-6位脱位的特别可行的选择。当严重的神经功能缺损或其他复杂损伤需要更大的稳定时,联合AP手术对双侧C4-5和C5-6脱位更有利。后路入路可能更适合复杂的双侧脱位,特别是C6-7和C7-T1,其前路视野有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Surgical Management of Facet Fracture Dislocations of the Subaxial Spine: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Introduction: Facet fracture dislocations of the subaxial spine pose notable risks of neurologic injury and spinal instability. The optimal surgical approach-whether anterior-alone, posterior-alone, or combined anterior-posterior-remains debated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and long-term outcomes of these surgical approaches.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients presenting with cervical facet fractures at a single level I trauma center was conducted. They were divided into anterior-alone, posterior-alone, and combined AP surgical groups. Primary outcomes including preoperative neurologic status (American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] classification), intensive care unit stay, long-term neurologic recovery, and revision surgery rates were compared between patients undergoing each of these approaches.

Results: A total of 33 patients were included in the analysis. Bilateral dislocations were more common in the posterior group (87.5%) compared with the anterior group (50%). Anterior surgery was performed more frequently for C4-5 and C5-6 dislocations (57.1%). Patients with ASIA E were more likely to undergo anterior surgery while those with ASIA A-D tended to have combined or posterior approaches. The average intensive care unit stay was 8.9 days (median 3), 6.6 days (median 4), and 6.3 days (median 4) for anterior, posterior, and combined groups, respectively. Long-term neurologic recovery was observed in 28.6% of anterior patients, 12.5% of posterior patients, and 36.4% of combined patients. The anterior group had a higher revision surgery rate (14.3%; P = 0.284). Patients in the anterior group were most likely to be discharged home with minimal care requirements.

Conclusion: Anterior surgery is a particularly viable option for C4-5 and C5-6 dislocations in patients with minimal neurologic impairment. Combined AP surgery is more beneficial for bilateral C4-5 and C5-6 dislocations when severe neurologic deficits or other complex injuries necessitate greater stabilization. Posterior approaches may be preferable for complex bilateral dislocations, particularly at C6-7 and C7-T1, where anterior visualization is limited.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
282
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信