Brain & spine最新文献

Introduction: Classifications are helpful for surgeons as they can be a resource for decision-making, often providing the individual indicators that may deem a case necessary for surgery. However, when there are multiple classifications, the decision-making might be compromised. That is the case with C2 fractures. For this reason, this study was designed to review the different classifications of axis fractures.

Research question: What are the most commonly used classifications for C2 fractures, and how do these classifications compare in terms of clinical utility?

Methods: A systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Guidelines was performed. Three different Pub-med searches (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) were done to isolate the most common C2 fracture classifications of odontoid process fractures, the posterior element of the axis and axis body fractures.

Results: The search isolated 530 papers. Applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria yielded seven papers on axis body fractures, six on odontoid fractures, and ten on "hangman's fractures." Most of the classifications proposed are modified versions of the classic ones: Benzel's for body fractures, Anderson and D'Alonzo's for odontoid fractures, and Effendi's for "hangman's fractures." The proposal by AO Spine of a different classification seems promising and had good early results of interobserver and intraobserver agreement.

Discussion and conclusion: Currently, no classification is universally accepted or widely used. The emergence of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification system seems promising as it encompasses radiological and clinical elements.

Introduction: A subgroup of severe Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) patients, known as ultra-severe (us-TBI), is most commonly defined as a post-resuscitation Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 3-5. There is uncertainty on whether these critically injured patients can benefit from neurosurgical intervention.

Research question: The available evidence regarding the decision-making and outcome following management of us-TBI patients is critically reviewed.

Material and methods: Selected databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus and Cochrane Library) were searched from 1979 to May 2024 for publications on us-TBI patients, with a focus on treatment strategy, mortality and functional outcomes. Inclusion criteria were adult patients >18 years old with closed head trauma and admission post-resuscitation GCS 3-5. Studies were independently assessed for inclusion by two reviewers, and potential disagreements were solved by consensus.

Results: Where such data could be extracted, mortality rate was 27-100%, and favorable outcome was observed in 4-30% of us-TBI patients. While early aggressive neurosurgical management was associated with decreased mortality, a high proportion of patients survived with unfavorable functional status.

Discussion and conclusion: With supportive care only, outcome of patients with us-TBI is almost universally poor. Early and aggressive neurosurgical intervention in addition to best medical management can lead to favorable functional outcome in selected cases particularly in younger patients with an initial GCS>3 and traumatic mass lesions. There is insufficient data regarding the effectiveness of neurosurgical management on the outcome of us-TBI patients. and the decision to initiate treatment should be based on an individual basis.

[This retracts the article DOI: 10.1016/j.bas.2023.102744.].

Background: Benefit of implant removal in spine surgery remains unclear. While there is mostly consensus about necessity of implant removal in posterior-only stabilized patients, the effect of this measure in cases with combined anterior-posterior stabilization is undetermined. With this work we present a retrospective analysis of 87 patients with traumatic thoracolumbar vertebral fractures concerning quality of life (QOL), loss of correction (LOC) and range of motion (ROM). The effect of implant removal on the outcome 18-74 months after surgery was analyzed to determine how implant removal affects radiologic, functional and quality-of life-related parameters.

Patients and methods: 87 patients suffering from a traumatic vertebral body fracture (T11 - L2) were included. Quality of life was determined using four different scoring systems (SF 36, VAS, Oswestry, LBOS). Clinical examination included range of motion. Radiologic findings were correlated with QOL.

Results: Patients with removal of the internal fixator had a trend towards better range of motion than patients with posterior instrumentation left in place. Radiologic findings showed no correlation to QOL. Implant removal led to better values in Oswestry and SF-36. 69% of patients after removal reported a reduction of their symptoms.All patients with persistence of severe pain after implant removal belonged to subgroup II.2 (anterior monosegmental fusion with bone graft).

Conclusion: Removal of the internal fixator can lead to a reduction of symptoms. Patient selection is crucial for successful indication. Radiologic findings do not correlate with QOL.

Introduction: It was not even a century ago when a spinal cord injury (SCI) would inevitably result in a fatal outcome, particularly for those with complete SCI. Throughout history, there have been extensive endeavours to change the prospects for SCI patients by performing surgery, even though many believed that there was no way to alter the catastrophic course of SCI. To this day, the debate regarding the efficacy of surgery in improving the neurological outcome for SCI patients persists, along with discussions about the timing of surgical intervention.

Research question: How have the historical surgical results shaped our perspective on the surgical treatment of SCI?

Material and methods: Narrative literature review.

Results: Throughout history there have been multiple surgical attempts to alter the course of SCI, with conflicting results. While studies suggest a potential link between timing of surgery and neurological recovery, the exact impact of immediate surgery on individual cases remains ambiguous. It is becoming more evident that, alongside surgical intervention, factors specific to both the patient and their surgical treatment will significantly influence neurological recovery.

Conclusion: Although a growing number of studies indicates a potential correlation of surgical timing and neurological outcome, the precise influence of urgent surgery on an individual basis remains uncertain. It is increasingly apparent that, despite surgery, patient- and treatment-specific factors will also play a role in determining the neurological outcome. Notably, these very factors have influenced the results in previous studies and our views concerning surgical timing.