[Role of the RUANS recommendation protocol for decision-making in patients with acute traumatic cervical spine injuries]. / Rol' rekomendatel'nogo protokola Assotsiatsii neirokhirurgov RF pri vybore optimal'noi taktiki lecheniya patsientov s ostrymi travmaticheskimi povrezhdeniyami sheinogo otdela pozvonochnika.

Since 2013, neurosurgeons have been guided by the RUANS recommendation protocol for surgical management of patients with acute cervical spine fractures in Russia. However, there are no studies devoted to interobserver agreement between specialists with different experience. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of the RUANS recommendation protocol for decision-making in patients with acute traumatic cervical spine injuries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-one neurosurgeons from 5 hospitals estimated data of 64 patients with cervical spine fractures. The study implied choosing an option for patient treatment (conservative therapy; anterior, posterior and circular fusion surgery). Two evaluations of CT and MR scans with an interval of 1.5 months were conducted. In the main group (9/21), neurosurgeons strictly followed the RUANS recommendation protocol during re-evaluation. In the control group (12/21), neurosurgeons analysed data considering their own knowledge and experience. Interobserver agreement was evaluated using a Fleiss' or Cohen's Kappa (K). RESULTS: Among the junior neurosurgeons (up to 5 years of experience), change in consent level during re-evaluation was greater in the main group (∆K=0.25) compared to the control group (∆K= -0.17). Among neurosurgeons with medium level of experience (5-10 years), ∆K was 0.19 in the main group and -0.15 in the control group. Among experienced neurosurgeons (over 10 years of experience), the main group showed an increase in Kappa (∆K=0.24), while level of consent remained almost the same in the control group (∆K=0.05). CONCLUSION: The RUANS recommendation protocol can significantly improve interobserver agreement between specialists with various levels of experience regarding management of acute cervical spine injury.

[Lateral retropleural and retrodiaphragmatic approach in patients with spine trauma and diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis]. / Primenenie lateral'nogo retroplevral'nogo i retrodiafragmal'nogo dostupa u patsientov s travmoi i zabolevaniyami pozvonochnika: sistematicheskii obzor i metaanaliz.

BACKGROUND: Retropleural and/or retrodiaphragmatic approach is one of the options for anterolateral access to the thoracic spine and thoracolumbar region. This technique has no disadvantages associated with thoracotomy or extensive tissue dissection following posterolateral approaches. OBJECTIVE: Systematic analysis of foreign and national researches devoted to the possibility, safety and effectiveness of lateral retropleural approach to the thoracic spine and meta-analysis of the most common complications associated with this approach. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Initial searching revealed 133 abstracts for further study. Inclusion criteria: 1) available full-text version of the manuscript in English or Russian; 2) age of patients over 18 years; 3) description of lateral retropleural or retrodiaphragmatic approach complicated or not complicated by access-associated complications. According to these criteria, we enrolled 10 manuscripts. RESULTS: Meta-analysis showed high (10.6%) probability of pleural injury associated with surgical approach. Compared to endoscopic transthoracic interventions, the above-mentioned access is characterized by similar or slightly greater blood loss (401.2 ml vs. 100-775 ml) and slightly longer surgery time (200.5 vs. 97.5-186 min) that may be due to small number of interventions and relatively little experience of such operations. The number of patients with approach-related complications is comparable to that for endoscopic transthoracic access (5% vs. 3.7-13.3%). Compared to transthoracic minithoracotomy, this approach is characterized by similar blood loss (401.2 vs. 391 ml), longer surgery time (200.5 vs. 168 min) and similar or lower morbidity (5% vs. 5-13.5%). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive anterolateral retropleural and/or retrodiaphragmatic approach to the thoracic spine and thoracolumbar junction for corpectomy and discectomy ensures effective spinal canal decompression and less incidence of complications following open or thoracoscopic thoracic spine surgery. Dissection of parietal pleura should be of special attention because injury of this structure occurs in 10.6% of cases. Skin incision 7.1 cm and rib resection for at least 5 cm may be valuable to prevent plural damage.

[Ventral decompression techniques in patients with traumatic and non-traumatic atlanto-axial dislocations]. / Metody ventral'noi dekompressii u patsientov s atlanto-aksial'nymi dislokatsiiami travmaticheskogo i netravmaticheskogo geneza.

Compression of the caudal medulla oblongata and ventral portions of the spinal cord is the most dangerous complication of atlanto-axial dislocation (AAD). AIM: The study objective was to improve surgical management of patients with ventral compression of the spinal cord in the setting of AAD of various genesis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analyzed treatment outcomes in 250 patients with C1 and C2 injuries and diseases for the period between 2002 and 2016. Persistent ventral compression of the neural structures in the setting of AAD was detected in 34 (13.6%) patients. Anterior or posterior dislocation was in 21 patients, vertical dislocation occurred in 7 patients, and mixed (anterior and vertical) occurred in 6 cases. The causes of AAD included odontoid fractures (21 patients, 61.8%), Jefferson fractures (6 patients, 17.6%), atlas transverse ligament rupture (1 patient, 2.9%), rheumatoid arthritis (4 patients, 11.8%), and nonspecific spondylitis (2 patients, 5.9%). RESULTS: All dislocations were divided into Halo-tractable and Halo-intractable ones. In 24 cases, ventral decompression was achieved due to Halo reposition. Additional resection of a compressing substrate was performed through the submandibular approach in 4 patients, through the transoral approach in 5 patients, and through the transnasal approach in 1 case. In the postoperative period, complications in the form of pharyngeal edema developed in 1 patient after transoral decompression. In the other cases, there were no postoperative complications. All patients had improvement in their condition in the form of regression of a neurological deficit. CONCLUSION: Halo reposition is a technique eliminating, completely or partially, ventral compression in certain traumatic and non-traumatic dislocations. The choice of a surgical corridor should be performed after preliminary Halo correction. If the nasopalatine line runs in the odontoid neck projection, the submandibular approach may be used in the case of a Halo-tractable dislocation, and the endonasal approach may be used in the case of a Halo-intractable dislocation.