Abstract：Objective To investigate outcomes of different surgical approaches for treating cases of fracture and dislocation of the lower cervical spine. Methods The study involved 26 cases of fracture and dislocation of the lower cervical spine treated surgically from December 2002 to January 2012, including 19 males and 7 females with age ranging from 27 to 62 years (average 39 years). According to the AO classification, there were 12 cases of type B3.1, three of type B3.2, two of type C2.1, three of type C3.1, and six of type C3.2. Preoperative spinal cord function graded by Frankel criteria was six cases of grade A, five of grade B, seven of grade C, six of grade D, and two of grade E. Conventional skull traction was done for all patients before operation. Vertebral cannal decompression and interbody fusion through anterior, posterior or anterior-posterior approaches were determined according to type of fracture dislocation and severity of spinal cord injury. Radiography was performed regularly after operation to review the correction of dislocation, restoration of vertebral height, and interbody fusion. Spinal cord function was also evaluated postoperatively. Results No large blood vessel injury or aggravation of spinal cord injury occurred intraoperatively. There were no complications of incision infection, leakage of cerebrospinal fluid, herniation of bone graft or implant breakage postoperatively. All cases obtained successful correction of fracture and dislocation of the lower cervical spine as well as the recovery of cervical sequence, physiological curvature, and vertebral height in the 12 to 24 months of follow-up (average 16 months). Bony fusion was obtained for all cases at postoperative 3-6 months (average 3.5 months). Spinal function evaluated by Frankel criteria at the latest follow-up showed was grade A in six cases, grade B in three, grade C in five, grade D in five and grade E in seven, with different degree of improvement for all cases. Conclusions Operative approaches should be selected according to the specific status of fracture and dislocation of the lower cervical spine. Anterior approach can be performed for vertebral or intervertebral disc injury straightly and the procedure handles cervical instability immediately. Posterior surgical approach can be used to settle dislocation and interlocking of the articular process directly, but the intervertebral disc injury should be ruled out simultaneously in order to avoid further injury of spinal cord during the reduction process. Combined anterior and posterior surgical approach can be applied to treat fracture and dislocation of lower cervical spine and intervertebral disc injury concurrently but has high risk and large operation wound.
LAN Xu,XU Jian-zhong,LUO Fei et al. Different surgical approaches for treatment of fracture and dislocation of the lower cervical spine[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF TRAUMA, 2013, 29(4): 302-306.
［1］Mithani SK, St-Hilaire H, Brooke BS, et al. Predictable patterns of intracranial and cervical spine injury in craniomaxillofacial trauma: analysis of 4786 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2009, 123(4):1293-1301.
［2］Branco BC, Plurad D, Green DJ, et al. Incidence and clinical predictors for tracheostomy after cervical spinal cord injury: a national trauma databank review. J Trauma, 2011, 70(1):111-115.
［3］Gulsen S, Yilmaz C, Calisaneller T, et al. Preoperative functional assessment of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in patients with cervical vertebra fracture: case report. Neurosurgery, 2009, 64(1):E191-E192.
［4］Schneider PS, Bouchard J, Moghadam K, et al. Acute cervical fractures in ankylosing spondylitis: an opportunity to correct preexisting deformity. Spine, 2010, 35(7):E248-E252.
［7］Hassid VJ, Schinco MA, Tepas JJ, et al. Definitive establishment of airway control is critical for optimal outcome in lower cervical spinal cord injury. J Trauma, 2008, 65(6):1328-1332.
［8］Konstantinidis A, Plurad D, Barmparas G, et al. The presence of nonthoracic distracting injuries does not affect the initial clinical examination of the cervical spine in evaluable blunt trauma patients: a prospective observational study. J Trauma, 2011, 71(3):528-532.
［9］Kim HJ, Lee KY, Kim WC. Treatment outcome of cervical tear drop fracture. Asian Spine J, 2009, 3(2):73-79.
［10］Ghiselli G, Wharton N, Hipp JA, et al. Prospective analysis of imaging prediction of pseudarthrosis after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: computed tomography versus flexion-extension motion analysis with intraoperative correlation. Spine, 2011, 36(6):463-468.
［11］Harris MB, Reichmann WM, Bono CM, et al. Mortality in elderly patients after cervical spine fractures. J Bone Joint Surg (Am), 2010, 92(3):567-574.
［12］Aebi M. Surgical treatment of upper, middle and lower cervical injuries and non-unions by anterior procedures. Eur Spine J, 2010, 19 Suppl 1:S33-S39.
［13］Zehnder SW, Lenarz CJ, Place HM. Teachability and reliability of a new classification system for lower cervical spinal injuries. Spine, 2009, 34(19):2039-2043.
［14］Chen R, Song Y, Kong Q, et al. Analysis of 78 patients with spinal injuries in the 2008 Sichuan, China, earthquake. Orthopedics, 2009, 32(5):322.
［15］Zhao L, Xu R, Liu J, et al. Comparison of two techniques for transarticular screw implantation in the subaxial cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2011, 24(2):126-131.
［16］Li L, Zhou FH, Wang H, et al. Posterior fixation and fusion with atlas pedicle screw system for upper cervical diseases. Chin J Traumatol, 2008, 11(6):323-328.
