Pediatric cervical spine injuries-results of the German multicenter CHILDSPINE study.

Journal and index pages often block iframe embedding. This reader keeps the evidence details in Orthonotes and leaves the source page one click away.

Abstract

[Indexed for MEDLINE] 12. World Neurosurg. 2020 Oct;142:e364-e371. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.06.234. Epub 2020 Jul 13. An Experimental Study on the Safety and Mechanism of Reduction of Subaxial Cervical Facet Dislocation Using Z-Shape Elevating-Pulling Reduction Technique. Wu Y(1), Shao X(1), Wang X(2), Zeng J(1). Author information: (1)Department of Spine Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, People's Republic of China. (2)Department of Spine Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: xj.wang2000@163.com. OBJECTIVE: We sought to clarify the safety and unlocking mechanism of the Z-shape elevating-pulling closed reduction (ZR) technique and to analyze the differences in facet contact force and intraspinal pressure during subaxial facet dislocation reduction using the ZR technique and traditional skull traction closed reduction (SR). METHODS: In 15 human cadaveric skull-neck-thorax specimens, reproducible unilateral and bilateral facet dislocations (UFDs/BFDs) were created at the C5-C6 level and then reduced by applying the ZR and SR techniques, respectively. Tekscan FlexiForce A-201 pressure sensors were used to measure the anterior and posterior intraspinal pressure and injured facet contact force under physiological conditions and before and after reduction. The maximum pressures during the reduction process were recorded. RESULTS: After creation of the facet dislocation, the anterior and posterior intraspinal pressure and facet contact force were significantly increased relative to normal (P < 0.001). The UFDs and BFDs of all specimens were successfully reduced by both ZR and SR, and the intraspinal pressure and facet contact force were significantly reduced compared with before reduction (P < 0.001). Compared with SR, the maximum posterior intraspinal pressure during BFD reduction (P = 0.027) and the maximum facet contact force during UFD reduction (P < 0.001) were lower when ZR was used for closed reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that ZR and SR can both be used to reduce subaxial facet dislocation and decompress the spinal cord. However, the ZR technique appears to safer and more effective than the SR technique for closed reduction of subaxial facet dislocations. Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.06.234