对 C2 骨折进行多种分类后的处理,叙述性综述。

IF 1.9 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Brain & spine Pub Date : 2024-08-15 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.bas.2024.102928
Michael McDermott, Guisela Quinteros, Federico Landriel, Chase Stastny, Daniel Raskin, Guillermo Ricciardi, Andrei Fernandes Joaquim, Charles Carazzo, Amna Hussein, Jahangir Asghar, Alfredo Guiroy
{"title":"对 C2 骨折进行多种分类后的处理,叙述性综述。","authors":"Michael McDermott, Guisela Quinteros, Federico Landriel, Chase Stastny, Daniel Raskin, Guillermo Ricciardi, Andrei Fernandes Joaquim, Charles Carazzo, Amna Hussein, Jahangir Asghar, Alfredo Guiroy","doi":"10.1016/j.bas.2024.102928","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>What are the most commonly used classifications for C2 fractures, and how do these classifications compare in terms of clinical utility?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":72443,"journal":{"name":"Brain & spine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11415952/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Management of C2 fractures following multiple classifications, a narrative review.\",\"authors\":\"Michael McDermott, Guisela Quinteros, Federico Landriel, Chase Stastny, Daniel Raskin, Guillermo Ricciardi, Andrei Fernandes Joaquim, Charles Carazzo, Amna Hussein, Jahangir Asghar, Alfredo Guiroy\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bas.2024.102928\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>What are the most commonly used classifications for C2 fractures, and how do these classifications compare in terms of clinical utility?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72443,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brain & spine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11415952/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brain & spine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bas.2024.102928\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain & spine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bas.2024.102928","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:分类对外科医生很有帮助,因为它们可以作为决策的资源,通常可以提供认为有必要进行手术的个别指标。然而,当存在多种分类时,决策可能会受到影响。C2 骨折就是这种情况。因此,本研究旨在回顾轴突骨折的不同分类:研究问题:C2骨折最常用的分类方法是什么?按照《系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目》(PRISMA)指南进行了系统性文献综述。进行了三次不同的Pub-med检索(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/),以分离出最常见的C2骨折分类:蝶骨突骨折、轴后部骨折和轴体骨折:结果:搜索共分离出 530 篇论文。根据纳入和排除标准,得出了七篇关于轴体骨折的论文、六篇关于蝶骨骨折的论文和十篇关于 "刽子手骨折 "的论文。提出的大多数分类方法都是经典分类方法的改进版:Benzel 的分类法适用于轴体骨折,Anderson 和 D'Alonzo 的分类法适用于蝶骨骨折,Effendi 的分类法适用于 "绞刑架骨折"。AO Spine 提出的另一种分类方法似乎很有前途,在观察者之间和观察者内部的一致性方面取得了良好的早期结果:目前,还没有一种分类方法被普遍接受或广泛使用。AO 脊柱上颈椎损伤分类系统的出现似乎很有希望,因为它包含了放射学和临床要素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Management of C2 fractures following multiple classifications, a narrative review.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Brain & spine
Brain & spine Surgery
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
71 days
期刊最新文献
Fat beyond muscle: Assessing epimuscular fat of the lumbar spine and its association with vertebral level, demographics, BMI, and low back pain. The application of medical ethics in the developing countries - A neurosurgical perspective. Machine learning predictive model for lumbar disc reherniation following microsurgical discectomy. A systematic review evaluating the association of atherosclerosis and lumbar degenerative disc disease. Consensus statement by the Belgian Society of Neurosurgery and literature review on the diagnosis and management of postoperative spinal epidural hematoma.
×
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