Both anterior and posterior approaches have shown insignificant differences in good clinical outcomes with one over another advantages and disadvantages. This review aimed to provide evidence for the best management of subaxial cervical spine injuries and discuss the clinical outcomes and complications. Clinical studies of anterior versus posterior and anterior versus anterior–posterior (combined) approaches to subaxial cervical spine injury were searched electronically from PubMed, Medline, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and other Internet databases. Clinical improvement, complication rates, and mortality rates showed no significant differences with an odds ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79–1.49; p=0.61) for the anterior versus posterior approach and an odds ratio of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.35–3.18; p=0.93) for the anterior versus the combined approach. Surgical duration and blood loss were significantly different between the anterior and posterior groups with a mean difference of −42.84 (95% CI, −64.39 to 21.29; p<0.0001); −212.91 (95% CI, −417.60 to 8.22; p=0.04), respectively, whereas the length of hospitalization did not (p=0.16). No difference was found between the groups when compared by clinical improvement and complication rate. Meanwhile, the anterior approach was superior to the posterior approach in terms of surgical duration, blood loss, and hospitalization length.

Both anterior and posterior approaches have shown insignificant differences in good clinical outcomes with one over another advantages and disadvantages. This review aimed to provide evidence for the best management of subaxial cervical spine injuries and discuss the clinical outcomes and complications. Clinical studies of anterior versus posterior and anterior versus anterior–posterior (combined) approaches to subaxial cervical spine injury were searched electronically from PubMed, Medline, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and other Internet databases. Clinical improvement, complication rates, and mortality rates showed no significant differences with an odds ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79–1.49; p=0.61) for the anterior versus posterior approach and an odds ratio of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.35–3.18; p=0.93) for the anterior versus the combined approach. Surgical duration and blood loss were significantly different between the anterior and posterior groups with a mean difference of −42.84 (95% CI, −64.39 to 21.29; p<0.0001); −212.91 (95% CI, −417.60 to 8.22; p=0.04), respectively, whereas the length of hospitalization did not (p=0.16). No difference was found between the groups when compared by clinical improvement and complication rate. Meanwhile, the anterior approach was superior to the posterior approach in terms of surgical duration, blood loss, and hospitalization length.

Both anterior and posterior approaches have shown insignificant differences in good clinical outcomes with one over another advantages and disadvantages. This review aimed to provide evidence for the best management of subaxial cervical spine injuries and discuss the clinical outcomes and complications. Clinical studies of anterior versus posterior and anterior versus anterior–posterior (combined) approaches to subaxial cervical spine injury were searched electronically from PubMed, Medline, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and other Internet databases. Clinical improvement, complication rates, and mortality rates showed no significant differences with an odds ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79–1.49; p=0.61) for the anterior versus posterior approach and an odds ratio of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.35–3.18; p=0.93) for the anterior versus the combined approach. Surgical duration and blood loss were significantly different between the anterior and posterior groups with a mean difference of −42.84 (95% CI, −64.39 to 21.29; p<0.0001); −212.91 (95% CI, −417.60 to 8.22; p=0.04), respectively, whereas the length of hospitalization did not (p=0.16). No difference was found between the groups when compared by clinical improvement and complication rate. Meanwhile, the anterior approach was superior to the posterior approach in terms of surgical duration, blood loss, and hospitalization length.

Both anterior and posterior approaches have shown insignificant differences in good clinical outcomes with one over another advantages and disadvantages. This review aimed to provide evidence for the best management of subaxial cervical spine injuries and discuss the clinical outcomes and complications. Clinical studies of anterior versus posterior and anterior versus anterior–posterior (combined) approaches to subaxial cervical spine injury were searched electronically from PubMed, Medline, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and other Internet databases. Clinical improvement, complication rates, and mortality rates showed no significant differences with an odds ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79–1.49; p=0.61) for the anterior versus posterior approach and an odds ratio of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.35–3.18; p=0.93) for the anterior versus the combined approach. Surgical duration and blood loss were significantly different between the anterior and posterior groups with a mean difference of −42.84 (95% CI, −64.39 to 21.29; p<0.0001); −212.91 (95% CI, −417.60 to 8.22; p=0.04), respectively, whereas the length of hospitalization did not (p=0.16). No difference was found between the groups when compared by clinical improvement and complication rate. Meanwhile, the anterior approach was superior to the posterior approach in terms of surgical duration, blood loss, and hospitalization length.

PURPOSE: Hypertonic fluids such as mannitol and half-molar sodium lactate are given to treat intracranial hypertension in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). In this study, sodium lactate was compared to mannitol in patients with TBI to investigate the efficacy in reducing intracranial pressure (ICP). METHODS: This study was a systematic review with literature research on articles published in any year in the databases of PubMed, ScienceDirect, Asian Journal of Neurosurgery, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The keywords were "half-molar sodium lactate", "mannitol", "cerebral edema or brain swelling", and "severe traumatic brain injury". The inclusion criteria were (1) studies published in English, (2) randomized control trials or retrospective/prospective studies on TBI patients, and (3) therapies including half-molar sodium lactate and mannitol and (4) sufficient data such as mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR). Data analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3. RESULTS: From 1499 studies, a total of 8 studies were eligible. Mannitol group reduced ICP of 0.65 times (MD 0.65; p = 0.64) and improved cerebral perfusion pressure of 0.61 times (MD 0.61; p = 0.88), better than the half-molar group of sodium lactate. But the half-molar group of sodium lactate maintained the mean arterial pressure level of 0.86 times, better than the mannitol group (MD 0.86; p = 0.09). CONCLUSION Half-molar sodium lactate is as effective as mannitol in reducing ICP in the early phase of brain injury, superior over mannitol in an extended period. It is able to prevent intracranial hypertension and give better brain tissue perfusion as well as more stable hemodynamics. Blood osmolarity is a concern as it increases serum sodium.
Brain Edema ; Brain Injuries, Traumatic/drug therapy* ; Diuretics, Osmotic/therapeutic use* ; Humans ; Intracranial Hypertension/etiology* ; Intracranial Pressure ; Mannitol/therapeutic use* ; Prospective Studies ; Retrospective Studies ; Saline Solution, Hypertonic ; Sodium Lactate