| Literature DB >> 34728986 |
Atul Goel1, Aditya Lunawat1, Abhidha Shah1, Saswat Dandpat1, Akshay Hawaldar1, Hardik Darji1, Nishit Trivedi1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The clinical outcome following multilevel stabilization in patients who suffered cervical spinal injury and developed severe neurological deficits and then gradually partially recovered is evaluated. The basis of the surgical concept was that cervical spinal degeneration is a result of single or multilevel spinal instability and that spinal trauma exaggerates the instability.Entities:
Keywords: Spinal cord injury without computed tomography evidence of trauma; spinal injury; spinal stabilization; transarticular fixation
Year: 2021 PMID: 34728986 PMCID: PMC8501811 DOI: 10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_110_21
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Craniovertebr Junction Spine ISSN: 0974-8237
The epidemiology, mode of injury, and radiological findings of the patients
| Case number | Age/sex | Mode of trauma | Time duration between injury and presentation to hospital (days) | Radiological levels of spinal degeneration | Levels of cord edema | Levels fixed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Female/57 | Fall | 4 | C3-C7 | C3-C6 | C2-C7 |
| 2 | Male/60 | Motor vehicle collision | 45 | C3-C7 | C3-C6 | C2-C7 |
| 3 | Male/46 | Motor vehicle collision | 5 | C3-C5 | C3-C5 | C2-C5 |
| 4 | Male/67 | Fall | 30 | C3-C5 | C4-5 | C2-C6 |
| 5 | Male/46 | Motor vehicle collision | 7 | C3-C4 | C3-4 | C2-C6 |
| 6 | Male/48 | Fall | 20 | C3-C6 | C3-6 | C2-C5 |
| 7 | Male/45 | Fall | 21 | C3-C5 | C3-4 | C2-C5 |
| 8 | Male/53 | Fall | 9 | C3-C5 | C4-5 | C2-C5 |
| 9 | Male/56 | Fall | 6 | C3-C6 | C3-4, C4-5 | C2-C7 |
| 10 | Female/61 | Fall | 5 | C3-C5 | C3-5 | C2- C6 |
| 11 | Male/50 | Motor vehicle collision | 8 | C4-C6 | C4-5 | C2- C6 |
| 12 | Female/47 | Motor vehicle collision | 5 | C3-C5 | C3-4 | C2-C5 |
| 13 | Male/51 | Motor vehicle collision | 6 | C3-C6 | C3-5 | C2-C6 |
| 14 | Male/57 | Fall | 5 | C3-C6 | C4-5 | C2-C6 |
The neurological status of the patients
| Case number | Neurological status | At time of injury | At time of presentation (preoperative) | Immediate postoperative | At 3 months follow-up | Delayed follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ASIA score | C | D | D | D | E |
| Goel clinical grade | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | |
| JOA score | 9 | 11 | 13 | 14 | 14 | |
| 2 | ASIA score | B | C | C | D | D |
| Goel clinical grade | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | |
| JOA score | 5 | 7 | 9 | 12 | 14 | |
| 3 | ASIA score | B | C | D | D | D |
| Goel clinical grade | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 2 | |
| JOA score | 5 | 8 | 10 | 13 | 16 | |
| 4 | ASIA score | C | D | D | D | E |
| Goel clinical grade | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | |
| JOA score | 6 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 16 | |
| 5 | ASIA score | C | C | D | D | E |
| Goel clinical grade | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | |
| JOA score | 8 | 11 | 12 | 14 | 15 | |
| 6 | ASIA score | B | C | D | D | D |
| Goel clinical grade | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | |
| JOA score | 4 | 11 | 12 | 14 | 16 | |
| 7 | ASIA score | B | C | D | D | D |
| Goel clinical grade | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | |
| JOA score | 7 | 9 | 12 | 14 | 15 | |
| 8 | ASIA score | C | D | D | D | E |
| Goel clinical grade | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | |
| JOA score | 9 | 11 | 12 | 15 | 16 | |
| 9 | ASIA score | C | C | D | D | E |
| Goel clinical grade | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | |
| JOA score | 8 | 11 | 12 | 14 | 15 | |
| 10 | ASIA score | B | C | C | C | D |
| Goel clinical grade | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | |
| JOA score | 5 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 14 | |
| 11 | ASIA score | C | D | D | D | D |
| Goel clinical grade | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| JOA score | 9 | 12 | 14 | 14 | 16 | |
| 12 | ASIA score | C | D | D | D | E |
| Goel clinical grade | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | |
| JOA score | 9 | 11 | 13 | 16 | 16 | |
| 13 | ASIA score | C | C | C | D | E |
| Goel clinical grade | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | |
| JOA score | 8 | 11 | 12 | 14 | 15 | |
| 14 | ASIA score | B | C | C | D | E |
| Goel clinical grade | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 2 | |
| JOA score | 5 | 5 | 10 | 13 | 16 |
ASIA - American spinal injury association; JOA - Japanese Orthopedic Association
Figure 1Images of a 57-year-old female patient [Table 1- Case 1]. (a) T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging showing moderate cervical spinal degenerative changes in the form of bulging disc spaces and ligamentum flavum. Intra-axial cord signals are seen at C4-5 and C6-7 levels. (b) Computed tomography scan with the head in flexed position does not show any evidence of bone injury or instability. (c) Computed tomography scan with the head in the extended position. (d) Computed tomography scan cut passing through the facets showing no significant abnormality or instability. (e) Postoperative computed tomography scan showing the cervical spine alignment. No posterior decompression has been done. (f) Computed tomography scan cut through the facets showing transarticular fixation. (g) Computed tomography scan showing the fixation construct. (h) Delayed magnetic resonance imaging (after 3 months of surgery) showing regression of the osteophyte and resolution of intra-axial spinal cord changes
Figure 2Images of a 46-year-old male patient [Table 1- Case 5]. (a) T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging showing degenerative spinal changes at C3-4 spinal segment. Intrinsic cord changes are seen opposite the disc bulge at this level. (b) Sagittal image of computed tomography scan showing no evidence of bone injury or instability. (c) Sagittal image of computed tomography scan with the cut passing through the facets. No significant facetal instability is observed. (d) Postoperative computed tomography scan. There is no posterior decompression. (e) Postoperative computed tomography scan showing transarticular fixation at 4 spinal segments. (f) Computed tomography scan showing the screws