Traumatic Posterolateral C1-C2 Dislocation Complicated with Locked Lateral Mass and Type II Odontoid Fracture-5-Year Follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to document our experience in managing a rare complex of traumatic posterolateral atlantoaxial dislocation combined with locked lateral mass and type II odontoid fracture. METHOD: A 30-year-old male patient was referred to the author's department. He complained of a decrease in neck range of motion following a traffic accident. Neurologic examination was normal. Computed tomography and open-mouth radiographs showed a type II odontoid fracture and a posterolateral dislocation with a laterally locked left lateral mass at the C1-C2 level. Considering the difficulty and risk in reduction, due to this rare instability and dislocation, a 2-staged treatment was performed. With up to 11 kg skull traction for 7 days before surgery, the locked lateral mass and the lateral dislocation was finally reduced without any neurologic deficit. And once closed reduction was confirmed by open-mouth and lateral X-ray views in the cervical spine, a second staged C1-C2 surgical fixation and fusion with iliac bone graft was performed to achieve a normal anatomic alignment with a better stability. RESULT: The patient showed significant amelioration of neck symptoms postoperatively, and a successful reduction and fixation of the C1-C2 articulation was achieved. At the 5-year follow-up, solid bone fusion was evident on the computed tomography scan. CONCLUSION: For traumatic posterolateral atlantoaxial dislocation complicated with type II odontoid fracture, a closed reduction of the lateral dislocation before operation is both useful and safe because surgeons do not need to reduce the extremely rare lateral dislocation during the operation. Posterior atlantoaxial stabilization and fusion, rather than the occipitocervical fusion as reported previously, is biomechanically stable enough to achieve solid fusion in this rare trauma while not sacrificing the occipitoatlantal joint.

Clinical characteristics of acute central cervical spinal cord injury with only upper extremity involvement and with both upper and lower extremity involvement / 中华创伤杂志

Objective To compare and analyze the clinical characteristics of acute central cervical spinal cord injury with only upper extremity involvement and with both upper and lower extremity involvement.Methods A retrospective case control study was made on clinical data of 76 patients with acute central cervical spinal cord injury hospitalized from January 2010 to December 2013.Nerve injury involved was only upper extremity in 39 patients (upper extremity group),but both upper and lower extremities in 37 patients (upper-and lower-extremity group).In upper extremity group,there were 35 males and four females,age was 21-80 years [(52.5 ± 13.4) years],injury resulted from traffic accidents in 24 patients,ground-level falls in eight,high-level falls in six and heavy-object hit in one,and level of injury was C3/4 in 16 patients,C4/5 in 14 and C5/6 in nine.In upper-and lower-extremity group,there were 30 males and seven females,age was 36-78 years [(59.6 ± 9.7) years],injury resulted from traffic accidents in 16 patients,ground-level falls in 11,high-level falls in seven and heavyobject hit in three,and level of injury was C3/4in nine patients,C4/sin 18 and C5/6in 10.Sagittal diameter of the cervical spinal canal,maximal canal compromise,maximal spinal cord compression,degenerating factors of the cervical spine and treatment protocols were determined.Upper extremity function was assessed with the American spinal injury association (ASIA) score.Results There were significant differences between upper extremity group and upper-and lower-extremity group in sagittal diameter of the cervical spinal canal [(7.5 ± 1.5)mm ∶ (6.8 ± 1.2)mm],maximal canal compromise [(28.9 ±9.6)％ ∶ (34.9 ± 10.6)％],ASIA score at admission[(31.6 ± 11.8)points ∶ (22.7± 11.3)points)] and ASIA score at last follow-up [(46.2 ± 4.2) points ∶ (40.2 ± 4.0) points] (P ＜ 0.05),while the maximal spinal cord compression in upper extremity group [(15.7 ± 11.9)％] had no significant difference from that in upper-and lowerextremity group [(17.0 ± 10.6) ％] (P ＞ 0.05).Lower prevalence of posterior osteophyte of the vertebral body was noted in upper extremity group than upper-and lower-extremity group (15％ ∶ 51％) (P ＜0.01).Twenty patients (49％) in upper extremity group were surgically treated,while 31 patients (84％) in upperand lower-extremity group (P ＜ 0.05).Conclusions Compared to acute central cervical spinal cord injury with both upper and lower extremity involvement,the injury with only upper extremity involvement is much common in younger patients and is characterized by lowered frequency of osteophyte,large buffer space,mild nerve damage,preferred non-operation treatment and good prognosis.