Jose A Canseco1, Gregory D Schroeder2, Parthik D Patel2, Giovanni Grasso3, Michael Chang2, Frank Kandziora4, Emiliano N Vialle5, F Cumhur Oner6, Klaus J Schnake7, Marcel F Dvorak8, Jens R Chapman9, Lorin M Benneker10, Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran11, Christopher K Kepler2, Alexander R Vaccaro2. 1. Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, 925 Chestnut St, 5th Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. jose.canseco@rothmanortho.com. 2. Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, 925 Chestnut St, 5th Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. 3. Neurosurgical Unit, Department of Biomedicine, Neurosciences and Advance Diagnostics (BiND), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy. 4. Center for Spinal Surgery and Neurotraumatology, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 5. Cajuru Hospital, Catholic University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil. 6. University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 7. Schön Klinik Nürnberg Fürth, Fürth, Germany. 8. Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 9. Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA. 10. Insel Hospital, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland. 11. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The management of cervical facet dislocation injuries remains controversial. The main purpose of this investigation was to identify whether a surgeon's geographic location or years in practice influences their preferred management of traumatic cervical facet dislocation injuries. METHODS: A survey was sent to 272 AO Spine members across all geographic regions and with a variety of practice experience. The survey included clinical case scenarios of cervical facet dislocation injuries and asked responders to select preferences among various diagnostic and management options. RESULTS: A total of 189 complete responses were received. Over 50% of responding surgeons in each region elected to initiate management of cervical facet dislocation injuries with an MRI, with 6 case exceptions. Overall, there was considerable agreement between American and European responders regarding management of these injuries, with only 3 cases exhibiting a significant difference. Additionally, results also exhibited considerable management agreement between those with ≤ 10 and > 10 years of practice experience, with only 2 case exceptions noted. CONCLUSION: More than half of responders, regardless of geographical location or practice experience, identified MRI as a screening imaging modality when managing cervical facet dislocation injuries, regardless of the status of the spinal cord and prior to any additional intervention. Additionally, a majority of surgeons would elect an anterior approach for the surgical management of these injuries. The study found overall agreement in management preferences of cervical facet dislocation injuries around the globe.
PURPOSE: The management of cervical facet dislocation injuries remains controversial. The main purpose of this investigation was to identify whether a surgeon's geographic location or years in practice influences their preferred management of traumatic cervical facet dislocation injuries. METHODS: A survey was sent to 272 AO Spine members across all geographic regions and with a variety of practice experience. The survey included clinical case scenarios of cervical facet dislocation injuries and asked responders to select preferences among various diagnostic and management options. RESULTS: A total of 189 complete responses were received. Over 50% of responding surgeons in each region elected to initiate management of cervical facet dislocation injuries with an MRI, with 6 case exceptions. Overall, there was considerable agreement between American and European responders regarding management of these injuries, with only 3 cases exhibiting a significant difference. Additionally, results also exhibited considerable management agreement between those with ≤ 10 and > 10 years of practice experience, with only 2 case exceptions noted. CONCLUSION: More than half of responders, regardless of geographical location or practice experience, identified MRI as a screening imaging modality when managing cervical facet dislocation injuries, regardless of the status of the spinal cord and prior to any additional intervention. Additionally, a majority of surgeons would elect an anterior approach for the surgical management of these injuries. The study found overall agreement in management preferences of cervical facet dislocation injuries around the globe.
Authors: Christopher K Kepler; Alexander R Vaccaro; Eric Chen; Alpesh A Patel; Henry Ahn; Ahmad Nassr; Christopher I Shaffrey; James Harrop; Gregory D Schroeder; Amit Agarwala; Marcel F Dvorak; Daryl R Fourney; Kirkham B Wood; Vincent C Traynelis; S Tim Yoon; Michael G Fehlings; Bizhan Aarabi Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2015-10-30
Authors: Ryan D Quarrington; Claire F Jones; Petar Tcherveniakov; Jillian M Clark; Simon J I Sandler; Yu Chao Lee; Shabnam Torabiardakani; John J Costi; Brian J C Freeman Journal: Spine J Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Christian B Theodotou; George M Ghobrial; Andrew L Middleton; Michael Y Wang; Allan D Levi Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Ahmad Nassr; Joon Y Lee; Marcel F Dvorak; James S Harrop; Andrew T Dailey; Christopher I Shaffrey; Paul M Arnold; Darrel S Brodke; Raja Rampersaud; Jonathan N Grauer; Corbett Winegar; Alexander R Vaccaro Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Juan P Cabrera; Ratko Yurac; Alfredo Guiroy; Andrei F Joaquim; Charles A Carazzo; Juan J Zamorano; Kevin P White; Marcelo Valacco Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2021-04-11 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Brian A Karamian; Gregory D Schroeder; Martin Holas; Andrei F Joaquim; Jose A Canseco; Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran; Lorin M Benneker; Frank Kandziora; Klaus J Schnake; F Cumhur Öner; Christopher K Kepler; Alexander R Vaccaro Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2021-04-02 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Gregory D Schroeder; Jose A Canseco; Parthik D Patel; Srikanth N Divi; Brian A Karamian; Frank Kandziora; Emiliano N Vialle; F Cumhur Oner; Klaus J Schnake; Marcel F Dvorak; Jens R Chapman; Lorin M Benneker; Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran; Christopher K Kepler; Alexander R Vaccaro Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2021-05-15 Impact factor: 3.241
Authors: Ji-Won Kwon; Edward O Arreza; Anthony A Suguitan; Soo-Bin Lee; Sahyun Sung; Yung Park; Joong-Won Ha; Tae Hyung Kim; Seong-Hwan Moon; Byung Ho Lee Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 4.241