Cervicothoracic translational injury: Radiological analysis and risk factors of spinal cord injury

Q4 Medicine Indian Spine Journal Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.4103/isj.isj_79_22
Karthik Ramachandran, A. Shetty, AshishShankar Naik, R. Kanna, S. Rajasekaran
{"title":"Cervicothoracic translational injury: Radiological analysis and risk factors of spinal cord injury","authors":"Karthik Ramachandran, A. Shetty, AshishShankar Naik, R. Kanna, S. Rajasekaran","doi":"10.4103/isj.isj_79_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To determine various radiological parameters predicting spinal cord injury (SCI) in patients with cervicothoracic translational injury. Materials and Methods: Forty-four patients operated for cervicothoracic (C7-T1) translational injury between January 2009 and 2019 were reviewed to obtain demographic details, mechanism of injury (based on Allen Ferguson classification), and neurology at the time of presentation (American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] grade). Preoperative computed tomography scans were used to measure parameters like anterior translation, local kyphotic angle, residual canal diameter (RCD) at injury level/cranial level/caudal level, and magnetic resonance imaging scans were used to measure maximum canal compromise (MCC), maximum spinal cord compression (MSCC), and length of cord edema. Patients were divided into group 1 (complete neurodeficit), group 2 (incomplete neurodeficit), and group 3 (normal neurology), and the radiological predictors were compared. Results: In our study, anterior translation (P < 0.001), RCD at the injury level (P < 0.001), RCD at the caudal level (P < 0.001), MSCC (P < 0.001), and MCC (P < 0.001) were associated with the increased risk of SCI at the time of presentation. Comparison among all three patient groups showed significant differences in the above parameters. The optimal cutoff for risk of SCI is 7.8 mm for anterior translation, 8.6 mm for RCD at the injury level, 11.9 mm for RCD at the caudal level, 30% for MCC, and 24% for MSCC. Conclusion: Our data highlight that in addition to the amount of anterior translation, canal diameter, and the degree of spinal cord compression at the injury level, the RCD at the caudal level also determines the incidence of SCI in cervicothoracic translational injuries.","PeriodicalId":34652,"journal":{"name":"Indian Spine Journal","volume":"6 1","pages":"132 - 140"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/isj.isj_79_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To determine various radiological parameters predicting spinal cord injury (SCI) in patients with cervicothoracic translational injury. Materials and Methods: Forty-four patients operated for cervicothoracic (C7-T1) translational injury between January 2009 and 2019 were reviewed to obtain demographic details, mechanism of injury (based on Allen Ferguson classification), and neurology at the time of presentation (American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] grade). Preoperative computed tomography scans were used to measure parameters like anterior translation, local kyphotic angle, residual canal diameter (RCD) at injury level/cranial level/caudal level, and magnetic resonance imaging scans were used to measure maximum canal compromise (MCC), maximum spinal cord compression (MSCC), and length of cord edema. Patients were divided into group 1 (complete neurodeficit), group 2 (incomplete neurodeficit), and group 3 (normal neurology), and the radiological predictors were compared. Results: In our study, anterior translation (P < 0.001), RCD at the injury level (P < 0.001), RCD at the caudal level (P < 0.001), MSCC (P < 0.001), and MCC (P < 0.001) were associated with the increased risk of SCI at the time of presentation. Comparison among all three patient groups showed significant differences in the above parameters. The optimal cutoff for risk of SCI is 7.8 mm for anterior translation, 8.6 mm for RCD at the injury level, 11.9 mm for RCD at the caudal level, 30% for MCC, and 24% for MSCC. Conclusion: Our data highlight that in addition to the amount of anterior translation, canal diameter, and the degree of spinal cord compression at the injury level, the RCD at the caudal level also determines the incidence of SCI in cervicothoracic translational injuries.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
颈胸平移损伤:脊髓损伤的放射学分析及危险因素
目的:确定预测颈胸平移损伤患者脊髓损伤(SCI)的各种放射学参数。材料和方法:回顾了2009年1月至2019年期间因颈胸(C7-T1)平移损伤手术的44名患者,以获得发病时的人口统计学细节、损伤机制(基于Allen-F格森分类)和神经病学(美国脊髓损伤协会[AASIA]级)。术前计算机断层扫描用于测量损伤水平/头部水平/尾部水平的前移、局部后凸角、残余椎管直径(RCD)等参数,磁共振成像扫描用于测量最大椎管内折(MCC)、最大脊髓压迫(MSCC)和脊髓水肿长度。将患者分为第1组(完全性神经病变)、第2组(不完全性神经损伤)和第3组(正常神经病学),并比较放射学预测因素。结果:在我们的研究中,前部平移(P<0.001)、损伤水平的RCD(P<001)、尾部水平的RCDs(P<0.01)、MSCC(P<0.05)和MCC(P<0.005)与表现时发生SCI的风险增加有关。所有三个患者组之间的比较显示,上述参数存在显著差异。SCI风险的最佳临界值为7.8 mm用于向前平移,8.6 mm,对于受伤级别的RCD,11.9 mm,MCC为30%,MSCC为24%。结论:我们的数据强调,除了损伤水平的前移量、椎管直径和脊髓压迫程度外,尾侧的RCD也决定了颈胸平移损伤中SCI的发生率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Indian Spine Journal
Indian Spine Journal Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
Decoding the Genetic Threads of Disc Degeneration The Scientific Evidence for Lumbar Total Disk Replacement Surgery Radiographic Assessment and Clinical Outcomes of Conservative Management in Atlanto-Axial Osteoarthritis: A Study of 108 Patients Vertebral Endplate Changes: Insights Into Its Natural Course and Clinical Implications in Low Back Pain Cell Therapy for Intervertebral Disc Regeneration: Progress and Hurdles in Clinical Translation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1