Surgical Approach to Cervical Fractures in Ankylosing Spondylitis Patients: Rationale and Surgical Strategy

Comparison of Posterior Approach and Combined Anterior-Posterior Approach in the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis Combined With Cervical Spine Fracture: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of the posterior approach and combined anterior-posterior approach in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with cervical spine fracture by meta-analysis.

METHODS

The databases PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies on the comparison of the posterior approach group and the combined anterior-posterior approach group in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis combined with cervical spine fracture from database establishment to August 2023. The procedure time, intraoperative blood loss, the rates of neurological improvement, mean change in the postoperative neurological function, complication rates, rates of revised surgery, and mortality were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software provided by Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

A total of 11 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 215 patients were included in this study. The posterior approach group had lower intraoperative blood loss than the combined anterior-posterior approach group [Mean difference (MD) = -146.05, 95%CI(-187.40,-104.69), P < .00001]; the operation time was significantly less in the posterior approach group than in the combined anterior-posterior approach group [MD = -95.34, 95%CI(-113.13,-77.55), P < .00001]. There were no statistically significant differences in the neurological improvement rates, mean changes in postoperative neurological function, complication rates, modified surgery rates, and mortality rates.

CONCLUSION

Both the posterior approach and combined anterior and posterior approach can achieve good results. Clinicians should develop an individualized approach based on the patient's fracture type, degree of spinal cord injury, fracture stability, fracture dislocation, general condition, and underlying disease.

Secondary Dislocations in Type B and C Injuries of the Subaxial Cervical Spine: Risk Factors and Treatment

INTRODUCTION

This study analyzed the incidence of secondary dislocations (sDLs) after surgical stabilization of AO Spine type B and C injuries of the subaxial cervical spine (sCS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients treated for injuries of the sCS from 2010 to 2020 were retrospectively analyzed for the incidence of sDL within 60 days after first surgery. A univariate analysis of variables potentially influencing the risk of sDL was performed. Patients with solitary anterior stabilization underwent subgroup analysis. The treatment of sDLs was described.

RESULTS

A total of 275 patients were included. sDLs occurred in 4.0% of patients (n = 11) in the total sample, most frequently after solitary anterior stabilization with 8.0% (n = 10, p = 0.010). Only one sDL occurred after combined stabilization and no sDLs after posterior stabilization. In the total sample and the anterior subgroup, variables significantly associated with sDL were older age (p = 0.001) and concomitant unstable facet joint injury (p = 0.020). No neurological deterioration occurred due to sDL and most patients were treated with added posterior stabilization. sDL is frequent after solitary anterior stabilization and rare after posterior or combined stabilization.

DISCUSSION

Patients of higher age and with unstable facet joint injuries should be followed up diligently to detect sDLs in time. Neurological deterioration does not regularly occur due to sDL, and most patients can be treated with added posterior stabilization.