Is only anterior stabilization enough in three-column injury of subaxial cervical spine? – A long-term retrospective analysis of 78 patients

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Study Design: This was a retrospective study. Purpose: The purpose was to retrospectively evaluate long-term outcome of anterior stabilization in three-column injury of the subaxial cervical spine. Overview of Literature: Literature shows varied results regarding the approach to be chosen. Most studies prefer a combined approach since biomechanically forms more stable construct. The isolated posterior approach is preferred by many as it is easy to reduce and fix three-column injuries. There are very few studies which show the isolated anterior approach to be better than the other two. Materials and Methods: Seventy-eight patients of three-column injury operated by anterior approach with follow-up of atleast 2 years were included and retrospectively analyzed. Clinical data included age, sex, time to surgery, methods of reduction, postoperative mobilization, and neurological evaluation using the ASIA scale. Radiological data included pre- and postreduction X-ray, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). X-rays taken post-operatively at 1,3, 6 months, 1yr and 2yrs.Variables like fracture type (AO Classification), overall alignment, localized kyphosis, time for fusion and grade of fusion mass were noted. Results: Of 78 patients, 61 had bifacetal dislocation and 17 unifacetal. The most common site was C5-6, followed by C3-4 and C6-7. The mean patient age was 35.98 years with 60 males and 18 females. The mean time to surgery was 4.4 days. Forty dislocations were reduced by closed method and 38 by open anterior approach. Fifty-six percent of patients had traumatic disc injury on MRI. All are managed by single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with iliac crest autograft for fusion. The mean preoperative lordosis: 4.44° (range −13.4° to 25°) and mean postoperative lordosis: 28.57° (P < 0.0001) mean loss of alignment: 2.59° by 2 years, 100% fusion with mean time – 22.82 weeks, neurological recovery in 34.6% with atleast one grade improvement in ASIA scale. No neurological worsening or need for revision surgery was observed. Conclusion: The goal of surgery in cervical injury is bony stabilization and fusion using a least morbid approach and one with good long-term outcome. Above study concludes that only anterior stabilization after reduction of three-column injury would suffice with good long-term outcome, thereby obviating need for global fusion.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Publication History

Received: 29 November 2020

Accepted: 10 April 2021

Article published online:
16 August 2022

© 2021. Asian Congress of Neurological Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

• References

• 1 Wiseman D, Bellabarba C, Mirza S. Anterior Versus Posterior Surgical Treatment for Traumatic Cervical Spine Dislocation.Vol. 14. ISSN 1041–9918: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.;2003:174 81.
• 2 Ulrich C, Wörsdörfer O, Claes L, Magerl F. Comparative study of the stability of anterior and posterior cervical spine fixationprocedures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1987;106:226-31.
• 3 Brodke DS, Anderson PA, Newell DW, Grady MS, Chapman JR.Comparison of anterior and posterior approaches in cervicalspinal cord injuries. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003;16:229-35.
• 4 Capen DA, Nelson RW, Zigler J, Waters RL, Garland DE. Surgical stabilisation of the cervical spine: A comparative analysis of anterior and posterior spine fusions. Paraplegia1987;25:111-9
• 5 Jin DD, Lu KW, Wang JX, Chen JT, Jiang JM. The selectionof the surgical approach in the management of fracture and dislocation of lower cervical spine combined spinal cord injury.Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 2004;42:1303-6.
• 6 Del Curto D, Tamaoki MJ, Martins DE, Puertas EB, Belloti JC. Surgical approaches for cervical spine facet dislocations in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;2014:CD008129.
• 7 Verbiest H. Anterolateral operations for fractures and dislocations in the middle and lower parts of the cervical spine. Report of a series of forty-seven cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1969;51:1489-530.
• 8 Lesoin F, Cama A, Lozes G, Servato R, Kabbag K, Jomin M. The anterior approach and plates in lower cervical posttraumatic lesions. Surg Neurol 1984;21:581-7
• 9 Aebi M, Zuber K, Marchesi D. Treatment of cervical spine injuries with anterior plating. Indications, techniques, and results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1991;16:S38-45.
• 10 Caspar W, Barbier DD, Klara PM. Anterior cervical fusion and Caspar plate stabilization for cervical trauma. Neurosurgery 1989;25:491-502.
• 11 Rizzolo SJ, Piazza MR, Cotler JM, Balderston RA, Schaefer D, Flanders A. Intervertebral disc injury complicating cervical spine trauma. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1991;16:S187-9.
• 12 Bell GD, Bailey SI. Section II: General orthopaedics. Anterior cervical fusion for trauma. Clin Orthop Related Res.1977;128:155-158.
• 13 Cloward RB. Treatment of acute fractures and fracture-dislocations of the cervical spine by vertebral-body fusion. A report of eleven cases. J Neurosurg 1961;18:201-9.
• 14 Kanna RM, Shetty AP, Rajasekaran S. Modified anterior-only reduction and fixation for traumatic cervical facet dislocation (AO type C injuries). Eur Spine J 2018;27:1447-53.
• 15 Lee HQ, Kow CY, Ng JS, Chan P, Ton L, Etherington G, et al. Correlation of anterior interbody graft choice with patient-reported outcomes in cervical spine trauma. Global Spine J 2019;9:735-42.
• 16 Schürmann K. The importance for rehabilitation of the interbody fusion and stabilization operation in fracture dislocations of the cervical spine. Scand J Rehabil Med 1972;4:114-22.
• 17 Böhler J, Gaudernak T. Anterior plate stabilization for fracture-dislocations of the lower cervical spine. J Trauma 1980;20:203-5.
• 18 Stauffer ES, Kelly EG. Fracture-dislocations of the cervical spine. Instability and recurrent deformity following treatment by anterior interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1977;59:45-8.
• 19 Theodotou CB, Ghobrial GM, Middleton AL, Wang MY, Levi AD. Anterior reduction and fusion of cervical facet dislocations. Neurosurgery 2019;84:388-95.
• 20 Reindl R, Ouellet J, Harvey EJ, Berry G, Arlet V. Anterior reduction for cervical spine dislocation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:648-52.
• 21 Gao W, Wang B, Hao D, Zhu Z, Guo H, Li H, et al. Surgical treatment of lower cervical fracture-dislocation with spinal cord injuries by anterior approach: 5- to 15-year follow-up. World Neurosurg 2018;115:e137-45.
• 22 Keynan O, Dvorak M, Fisher C. Reduction techniques in cervical facet dislocations. In: Techniques in Orthopaedics® Vol. 17.Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.; 2003. p. 336-44.
• 23 Ren C, Qin R, Wang P, Wang P. Comparison of anterior and posterior approaches for treatment of traumatic cervical dislocation combined with spinal cord injury: Minimum 10-year follow-up. Sci Rep 2020;10:10346.
• 24 Lambiris E, Kasimatis GB, Tyllianakis M, Zouboulis P, Panagiotopoulos E. Treatment of unstable lower cervical spine injuries by anterior instrumented fusion alone. J Spinal Disord Tech 2008;21:500-7.
• 25 Liu K, Zhang Z. Comparison of a novel anterior-only approach and the conventional posterior-anterior approach for cervical facet dislocation: A retrospective study. Eur Spine J 2019;28:2380-9. .