Traumatic Cervical Facet Fractures and Dislocations

Hospital Course and Complications of Subaxial Cervical Trauma Patients With Tetraplegia or Paraplegia: A Case Series and Literature Review

STUDY DESIGN

A single-institution, retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to present demographic characteristics, mechanism of injuries, lengths of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) days, discharge locations, and causes of 90-day readmission for patients with subaxial spinal cord injuries resulting in paraplegia or tetraplegia.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Spinal cord injuries resulting in paraplegia or tetraplegia are rare injuries with debilitating outcomes. Numerous advances have occurred in caring for these patients, but patients still experience multiple complications. The severity of these injuries and numerous complications result in prolonged hospital stays and the need for extensive rehabilitation.

METHODS

Twelve patients with subaxial spinal cord injury resulting in paraplegia or tetraplegia from a level 1 adult trauma center were reviewed. The primary outcomes included hospital length of stay, ICU days, intrahospital complications, 90-day readmission rates, and discharge location. We reviewed the literature for these outcomes in spinal cord injuries.

RESULTS

For patients with subaxial spinal cord injuries resulting in paraplegia and tetraplegia, the average age was 36.0 years, and most were male [91.7% (11/12)]. The most common mechanism of injury was gunshot wounds[41.7% (5/12)]. Patients spent an average of 46.3 days in the hospital and 30.7 days in the ICU. Respiratory complications were the most common (9 patients). Fifty percent of patients (6/12) were discharged to the inpatient spinal cord rehab center, and 16.7% (2/12) expired while in the hospital. Two patients (20.0%) were readmitted within 90 days of discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with subaxial spinal cord injuries resulting in paraplegia or tetraplegia were young males with high-energy traumas. Many patients had intrahospital complications, and most were discharged to the hospital spinal rehab center. These findings likely stem from the severity of paraplegia and tetraplegia injuries and the need for rehabilitation.

Comparison of Anterior Cervical Discectomy Fusion Combined with Lateral Mass Screw and with Cervical Pedicle Screw Fixation Surgery under O-Arm Navigation for Single-Stage Management of Severe Lower Cervical Fracture Dislocation

OBJECTIVE

The incidence of severe lower cervical fractures and dislocations due to trauma has increased significantly, and the optimal treatment remains controversial. This study compares the safety and efficacy of anterior cervical discectomy fusion (ACDF) combined with lateral mass screw (LMS) and with cervical pedicle screw (CPS) fixation surgery under O-arm navigation as single-stage treatments of severe lower cervical fracture dislocations.

METHODS

Data from 48 patients who underwent ACDF + CPS (Group A) or ACDF + LMS (Group B) for severe lower cervical fracture dislocation between January 2016 and September 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Groups A and B comprised 25 and 23 cases, respectively. Clinical parameters, such as operative time, intraoperative blood loss, number of fixed segments, posterior incision length, operative complications, and hospitalization days were recorded. Preoperatively and postoperatively, the sub-axial injury classification (SLIC) score, the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) impairment scale, and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score were recorded and analyzed using Student's t-test.

RESULTS

The SLIC scores were 7.1 ± 1.2 and 7.5 ± 1.1, ASIA were 1.5 ± 0.6 and 1.2 ± 0.6, JOA score improvements were 3.2 ± 2.4 and 3.0 ± 2.1, operative times were 282.1 ± 91.7 and 266.5 ± 88.2 min, intraoperative blood losses were 437.8 ± 118.5 and 418.7 ± 104.2 mL, fixed segments were 2.8 ± 0.7 and 4.8 ± 1.1, and lengths of posterior incisions were 12.7 ± 2.8 and 13.8 ± 3.2 cm in Groups A and B, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the operative time, intraoperative blood loss, incision length, and postoperative recovery; however, group A had more fixed segments. At the final follow-up, no intraoperative or postoperative complications directly caused by the implant were present. Throughout the follow-up, all cases showed recovery and progressive improvement.

CONCLUSION

Both ACDF + LMS and ACDF + CPS under O-arm navigation can safely and effectively restore cervical vertebral sequence, fully release spinal canal compression, and promote patients' neurological recovery. Thus, both are effective treatments for severe lower cervical fracture dislocations. However, compared to LMS, CPS under O-arm navigation has shorter fixed segments and induces less trauma.