Surgical approach for lower cervical fracture/dislocation combined with spinal cord injury: anterior versus posterior or both
陈鑫营,陈子华,李志忠,刘丹,钟鑫,方磊
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3977/j.issn.1005-8478.2017.16.03
2017-01-01
Abstract:[Objective] To investigate the clinical outcomes of different surgical approaches for the treatment of lower cervical spine fracture/dislocation combined with spinal cord injury.[Methods] Thirty-nine patients with cervical spine fracture/dislocation combined with spinal cord injury were treated surgically from July 2011 to June 2015.Preoperative Frankel classification was classified as grade A in 5 cases,B in 12 cases,C in 14 cases,D in 8 cases,respectively.The surgical scheme was selected according to the type of fracture,the degree of dislocation,whether combined with articular process fracture,locked facet and complex injury,or not.For 24 cases with fracture of vertebral body combined with intervertebral disc injury,anterior decompression,intervertebral bone graft fusion and internal fixation was carried out after preoperative skull traction.For 7 cases of cervical dislocation with small joint fracture or dislocation but without obvious anterior/middle column damage,the posterior lateral mass screw fixation was given.In another 8 cases,small joint dislocation and locked facet were combined with fracture,and reduction was not achieved successfully after large weight skull traction,then a combined anterior/posterior approach decompression and fusion was applied.The operation time,intraoperative blood loss,average fixed segment number,as well as postoperative complications were recorded and compared among 3 groups.The Cobb Angle,horizontal displacement of vertebral body and Frankel scale were evaluated to assess the recovery of spinal cord function and stability of spinal injury reconstruction.[Results] All cases were followed up for average of 18 months (range,6 to 30 months).Solid fusion was obtained in all cases within the postoperative 4～6 months.The operation time,blood loss and average fixed vertebrae number in the combination group was much more than the anterior or posterior group,with significant difference (P＜ 0.05),additionally,those in the posterior group was much more than the anterior group,also with significant difference (P＜ 0.05).The Frankel scale was improved by 1.2 grades in average,except 2 cases who had no recovery.Furthermore,JOA score was improved significantly in all cases,with significant difference (P＜0.05).[Conclusions] Anterior approach,posterior approach,or combination of them should be selected for different individuals on the basis of traumatic condition,injury location and different types of cervical spine instability.