Home | About JCVJS | Editorial board | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact us |   Login 
Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine
Search Articles   
    
Advanced search   
 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 16-20

Upper cervical injuries: Clinical results using a new treatment algorithm


1 Department of Neurosurgery, State University of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil
2 Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
3 Department of Orthopaedics, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
4 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Andrei F Joaquim
Rua Antônio Lapa 280, S 506, Cambuí - 13025-240, Campinas-São Paulo, Brazil
Brazil
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0974-8237.151585

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Upper cervical injuries (UCI) have a wide range of radiological and clinical presentation due to the unique complex bony, ligamentous and vascular anatomy. We recently proposed a rational approach in an attempt to unify prior classification system and guide treatment. In this paper, we evaluate the clinical results of our algorithm for UCI treatment. Materials and Methods: A prospective cohort series of patients with UCI was performed. The primary outcome was the AIS. Surgical treatment was proposed based on our protocol: Ligamentous injuries (abnormal misalignment, facet perched or locked, increase atlanto-dens interval) were treated surgically. Bone fractures without ligamentous injuries were treated with a rigid cervical orthosis, with exception of fractures in the dens base with risk factors for non-union. Results: Twenty-three patients treated initially conservatively had some follow-up (mean of 171 days, range from 60 to 436 days). All of them were neurologically intact. None of the patients developed a new neurological deficit. Fifteen patients were initially surgically treated (mean of 140 days of follow-up, ranging from 60 to 270 days). In the surgical group, preoperatively, 11 (73.3%) patients were AIS E, 2 (13.3%) AIS C and 2 (13.3%) AIS D. At the final follow-up, the American Spine Injury Association (ASIA) score was: 13 (86.6%) AIS E and 2 (13.3%) AIS D. None of the patients had neurological worsening during the follow-up. Conclusions: This prospective cohort suggested that our UCI treatment algorithm can be safely used. Further prospective studies with longer follow-up are necessary to further establish its clinical validity and safety.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2855    
    Printed55    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded21    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal