Comparison of Anterior, Posterior, and Combined Surgical Approaches on the Outcomes of Patients Suffering from Subaxial Cervical Spine Injuries.

Approach Cervical Outcome Spine Trauma

Journal

Bulletin of emergency and trauma
ISSN: 2322-2522
Titre abrégé: Bull Emerg Trauma
Pays: Iran
ID NLM: 101614018

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jul 2021
Historique:
received: 19 04 2021
revised: 31 05 2021
accepted: 07 06 2021
entrez: 26 7 2021
pubmed: 27 7 2021
medline: 27 7 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To investigate the radiological and clinical outcomes of different surgical approaches in cervical spinal trauma in northeastern of Iran. The present study was conducted retrospectively from January 2011 to December 2017 in Mashhad, Iran. The demographic characteristics, hospitalization duration, and patient's surgery detail data were extracted from the patients' medical records. The follow-up period was at least six months after surgery. This study was conducted on 72 patients and the majority (n=51; 70.8 %) of them were male. Moreover, the participants; mean age was determined at 40.7±16.5 years. In total, 33 (45.8%), 13(18.1%), and 11 patients (15.3%) were operated using the anterior, posterior, and combined approaches in one round, respectively. It should be mentioned that 15 (20.8%) patients underwent the combined approach in two rounds. Early mortality was observed in 22 (30.6%) patients in the admission period. According to the follow-up X-ray results, the type of approach showed no relationship with non-fusion, malalignment, cage subside, and adjacent disk narrowing ( According to the obtained results, there was no significant association between neurological and radiological outcomes among approaches. A high mortality rate was noted in combined surgery at one round, and the posterior approach is the best option when our goal is to correct lordosis.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34307703
doi: 10.30476/BEAT.2021.90865.1266
pmc: PMC8286651
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

133-137

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

None declared.

Références

Int Orthop. 2006 Feb;30(1):54-8
pubmed: 16249901
Spine J. 2006 Sep-Oct;6(5):514-23
pubmed: 16934720
J Neurosurg Spine. 2007 Jul;7(1):1-12
pubmed: 17633481
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003 Jun;16(3):229-35
pubmed: 12792335
J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2015;28(2):295-302
pubmed: 25096317
Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2016 Sep;74(9):745-749
pubmed: 27706424
Orthopedics. 1997 Oct;20(10):917-26
pubmed: 9362076
Global Spine J. 2014 Feb;4(1):63-70
pubmed: 24494184
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Mar 15;22(6):681-5
pubmed: 9089941
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Sep 1;33(19):2124; author reply 2124-5
pubmed: 18758371
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Jan 1;26(1):15-21
pubmed: 11148640
Ann Emerg Med. 2001 Jul;38(1):12-6
pubmed: 11423805
Indian J Orthop. 2007 Oct;41(4):255-67
pubmed: 21139776
Neurosurgery. 2013 Aug;60(CN_suppl_1):82-91
pubmed: 23839357
Eur Spine J. 2010 Mar;19 Suppl 1:S33-9
pubmed: 19826842

Auteurs

Hamid Rezaee (H)

Department of Neurosurgery, Shahid Kamyab Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

Ehsan Keykhosravi (E)

Department of Neurosurgery, Akbar Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

Mojtaba Mashhadinejad (M)

Resident of Neurosurgery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

Masoud Pishjoo (M)

Resident of Neurosurgery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

Classifications MeSH