scholarly journals Evaluation of the SLICS use in the treatment of subaxial cervical spine injuries

2015 ◽  
Vol 73 (5) ◽  
pp. 445-450 ◽  
Author(s):  
Halisson Y. F. da Cruz ◽  
Andrei F. Joaquim ◽  
Helder Tedeschi ◽  
Alpesh A. Patel

The SLICS (Sub-axial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System) was proposed to help in the decision-making of sub-axial cervical spine trauma (SCST), even though the literature assessing its safety and efficacy is scarce. Method We compared a cohort series of patients surgically treated based on surgeon’s preference with patients treated based on the SLICS. Results From 2009-10, 12 patients were included. The SLICS score ranged from 2 to 9 points (mean of 5.5). Two patients had the SLICS < 4 points. From 2011-13, 28 patients were included. The SLICS score ranged from 4 to 9 points (mean of 6). There was no neurological deterioration in any group. Conclusion After using the SLICS there was a decrease in the number of patients with less severe injuries that were treated surgically. This suggests that the SLICS can be helpful in differentiating mild from severe injuries, potentially improving the results of treatment.

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-10
Author(s):  
Oleksii S. Nekhlopochyn ◽  
Ievgenii I. Slynko ◽  
Vadim V. Verbov

Cervical spine injuries are a fairly common consequence of mechanical impact on the human body. The subaxial level of the cervical spine accounts for approximately half to 2/3 of these injuries. Despite the numerous classification systems that exist for describing these injuries, the recommendations for treatment strategy are very limited, and currently none of them is universal and generally accepted. Consequently, treatment decisions are based on the individual experience of the specialist, but not on evidence or algorithms. While the classification system based on the mechanism of trauma originally proposed by B.L. Allen et al. and subsequently modified by J.H. Harris Jr et al., was comprehensive, but lacked evidence, which to some extent limited its clinical applicability. Similarly, the Subaxial Injury Classification System proposed by the Spine Trauma Group, had no distinct and clinically significant patterns of morphological damage. This fact hindered the standardization and unification of tactical approaches. As an attempt to solve this problem, in 2016 Alexander Vaccaro, together with AO Spine, proposed the AO Spine subaxial cervical spine injury classification system, using the principle of already existing AOSpine classification of thoracolumbar injuries. The aim of the project was to develop an effective system that provides clear, clinically relevant morphological descriptions of trauma patterns, which should contribute to the determination of treatment strategy. The proposed classification of cervical spine injuries at the subaxial level follows the same hierarchical approach as previous AO classifications, namely, it characterizes injuries based on 4 parameters: (1) injury morphology, (2) facet damage, (3) neurological status, and (4) specific modifiers. The morphology of injuries is divided into 3 subgroups of injuries: A (compression), B (flexion-distraction), and C (dislocations and displacements). Damage types A and B are divided into 5 (A0-A4) and 3 (B1-B3) subtypes, respectively. When describing damage of the facet joints, 4 subtypes are distinguished: F1 (fracture without displacement), F2 (unstable fracture), F3 (floating lateral mass) and F4 (dislocation). The system also integrates the assessment of neurological status, which is divided into 6 subtype). In addition, the classification includes 4 specific modifiers designed to better detail a number of pathological conditions. The performance evaluation of AOSpine SCICS showed a moderate to significant range of consistency and reproducibility. Currently, a quantitative scale for assessing the severity of classification classes has been proposed, which also, to a certain extent, contributes to decision-making regarding treatment strategy.


Author(s):  
Sergio Mendoza-Lattes ◽  
Charles R. Clark

♦ The spine study group classification describes three families of fractures♦ Clinical examination can exclude a cervical spine injury in a non-distracted conscious patient without pain and neurological deficit♦ CT scan is the investigation of choice where fracture is suspected♦ Pure ligamentous injuries are rare♦ Priorities are immobilization and assessment, reduction of dislocations and then surgical decompression and stabilization.


Author(s):  
Vignesh S. ◽  
Pradeep B. ◽  
Balasubramanian D.

Background: Sub-axial cervical spine includes the C3 through C7 segments, a very mobile area of the spine with potential for devastating injuries as a result of instability and risk of spinal cord injury. Goal of treatment is to stabilize the spine and decompress when necessary, in order to promote the optimal environment for recovery.Methods: This is a retrospective study of 40 patients with sub-axial cervical spine injury who underwent surgery in this institute from January 2016 to March 2017.Results: Most of the patients were young males with road traffic accident. They underwent cerival traction for reducing translation and surgical management, mostly anterior procedures and in some cases posterior stabilisation.Conclusions: Most of the subaxial spine injuries can be treated by anterior procedures. Preoperative neurological status is an important predictor in postoperative neurological improvement.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 375
Author(s):  
Rupanwita Sen ◽  
Abhinandan Reddy Mallepally ◽  
Gayatri Sakrikar ◽  
Nandan Marathe ◽  
Tushar Rathod

Background: Airway management with cervical spine immobilization poses a particular challenge for intubation in the absence of neck extension and risks neurological damage in cases of unstable cervical spine injuries. Here, with manual inline stabilization (MILS) in patients with cervical spine injuries, we compared the safety/efficacy of intubation utilizing the TruView versus King Vision video laryngoscopes. Methods: This prospective, single-blind, comparative study was conducted over a 3-year period. The study population included 60 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Grade I-III patients, aged 18–65 years, who underwent subaxial cervical spine surgery utilizing two intubation techniques; TruView (TV) versus King Vision (KV). For both groups, relative intubation difficulty scores (IDS), total duration of intubation, hemodynamic changes, and other complications (e.g., soft-tissue injury and neurological deterioration) were recorded. Results: With MILS, patients in the KV group had statistically significant lower IDS (0.70 ± 1.02) and significantly shorter duration of intubation as compared to the TV group (1.67 ± 1.27) with MILS (P = 0.0010); notably, the glottic exposure was similar in both groups. The complication rate (e.g., soft-tissue injury) was lower for the KV group, but this was not statistically significant. Interestingly, no patient from either group exhibited increased neurological deterioration attributable to the method of intubation. Conclusion: King Vision has several advantages over TruView for intubating patients who have sustained cervical spine trauma. Nevertheless, both laryngoscopes afford comparable glottic views and safety profiles with similar alterations in hemodynamics.


2005 ◽  
pp. 008-024
Author(s):  
Edvard Aleksandrovich Ramikh

During recent decades the spine specialists’ views on mechanism and nature of various injuries of the subaxial cervical spine have changed and become fuller. This predetermined the choice of pathogenetical therapy for each type of injury. In this respect the concept of treatment regimen for cervical spine injuries is presented from long-term experience of Trauma Clinics of Novosibirsk RITO and newer literature data. The problems of clinical semeiology, radiodiagnosis, lower cervical spine injury classifications are discussed. Issues of conservative and surgical treatment choice, medical rehabilitation of all types of subaxial cervical spine injuries in accordance with modern classification are considered in detail.


Spinal Cord ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-32
Author(s):  
Vijayanth Kanagaraju ◽  
P. K. Karthik Yelamarthy ◽  
Harvinder Singh Chhabra ◽  
Ajoy Prasad Shetty ◽  
Ankur Nanda ◽  
...  

CJEM ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (02) ◽  
pp. 131-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hendrik P. Van Zyl ◽  
James Bilbey ◽  
Alan Vukusic ◽  
Todd Ring ◽  
Jennifer Oakes ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Objective: Emergency physicians are expected to rule out clinically important cervical spine injuries using clinical skills and imaging. Our objective was to determine whether emergency physicians could accurately rule out clinically important cervical spine injuries using computed tomographic (CT) imaging of the cervical spine. Method: Fifteen emergency physicians were enrolled to interpret a sample of 50 cervical spine CT scans in a nonclinical setting. The sample contained a 30% incidence of cervical spine injury. After a 2-hour review session, the participants interpreted the CT scans and categorized them into either a suspected cervical spine injury or no cervical spine injury. Participants were asked to specify the location and type of injury. The gold standard interpretation was the combined opinion of two staff radiologists. Results: Emergency physicians correctly identified 182 of the 210 abnormal cases with cervical spine injury. The sensitivity of emergency physicians was 87% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82–91), and the specificity was 76% (95% CI 74–77). The negative likelihood ratio was 0.18 (95% CI 0.12–0.25). Conclusion: Experienced emergency physicians successfully identified a large proportion of cervical spine injuries on CT; however, they were not sufficiently sensitive to accurately exclude clinically important injuries. Emergency physicians should rely on a radiologist review of cervical spine CT scans prior to discontinuing cervical spine precautions.


1995 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-28
Author(s):  
Jeffrey R. Avner

Although rare in pediatrics, cervical spine injuries still are associated with serious morbidity, disability, and mortality. Many of these injuries are exacerbated by inadequate neck immobilization or improper manipulation. Thus, the physician should be aware of which children are at risk for cervical spine injury and how to assess these patients properly. To find clinical markers that identify children who actually have cervical spine injuries, Rachesky et al reviewed 2133 cervical spine radiographs obtained in pediatric patients during a 7-year period. Of these children, 25 (1.2%) had abnormalities confirmed on radiographs. The incidence of injury increased with age; only four of the children who had cervical spine injuries were less than 8 years old.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document