Diagnosis and treatment of cervical spine hyperextension injury plus multilevel intervertebral discoligamentous complex injury
10.3760/cma.j.cn115530-20240509-00201
- VernacularTitle:颈椎过伸伤伴多节段椎间盘韧带复合体损伤的诊治分析
- Author:
Wei CHEN
1
;
Zhida CHEN
;
Bin LIN
;
Taoyi CAI
;
Yuzhe ZENG
;
Zhenqi DING
;
Zhangjian YU
;
Zhuanzhi HUANG
Author Information
1. 第九〇九医院（厦门大学附属东南医院）骨科，漳州 363000
- Keywords:
Cervical vertebrae;
Whiplash injuries;
Spinal cord injuries;
Disco-ligamentous complex;
Therapy
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
2024;26(11):978-984
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the clinical and imaging characteristics of cervical spine hyperextension injury plus multilevel disco-ligamentous complex (MDLC) injury and the therapeutic effectiveness of their treatment.Methods:A total of 456 patients with cervical hyperextension injury were hospitalized between January 2010 and October 2020 at Department of Orthopaedics, The 909th Hospital, Dongnan Hospital Affiliated to Xiamen University. A retrospective study was conducted to analyze the clinical data of the 43 patients among them who had been diagnosed with MDLC injury and undergone surgical treatment and been fully followed up. They were 37 males and 6 females with an age of (50.6±10.7) years. According to the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) grading, there were 1 case of grade A, 8 cases of grade B, 18 cases of grade C, and 16 cases of grade D. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score was (7.9±1.6) points. Anterior cervical decompression, fusion and internal fixation were conducted for 42 patients, and posterior total laminectomy and internal fixation for 1 patient. The clinical and imaging manifestations of the patients, and the consistency between preoperative and intraoperative diagnosis of disco-ligamentous complex (DLC) injury were analyzed. ASIA grading and JOA score were used to assess the outcomes of surgical treatment and comparisons were made between preoperation and postoperation.Results:DLC injury existed at 99 levels (43 cases), with a high incidence at level C 5-6 (30 cases), and high-signal manifestations of cervical cord injury existed at 48 levels, with a high incidence at level C 3-4 (16 cases). Two-segment DLC injury was the most common [74.4% (32/43)], while three-segment DLC injury existed in 9 cases and four-segment DLC injury in 2 cases. There were 21 cases of jumping MDLC injury and 22 cases of continuous MDLC injury. At preoperation, DLC injury was suspected in 10 patients (at 11 levels), of whom 8 (at 9 levels) were diagnosed intraoperatively with DLC injury, and 2 (at 2 levels) were excluded from the DLC injury. All the 43 patients were followed up for (54.7±10.7) months. By the ASIA grading at the last follow-up, 3 cases were grade C, 13 cases grade D, and 27 cases grade E. The JOA score at the last follow-up was (15.1±2.2) points. Both the 2 outcomes showed significant improvements compared with the preoperative values ( P<0.05). Conclusions:The clinical incidence of cervical hyperextension injury combined with MDLC injury is low, but relatively higher in the middle-aged and elderly patients. As the level of DLC injury is often inconsistent with the likely level of cervical spinal cord injury, surgical exploration of the DLC structure with suspected injury can reduce the rate of missed diagnosis and misdiagnosis.
