POSTERIOR FIXATION OF HANGMAN’S FRACTURES
https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2014.4.15-19
Abstract
Objective. To analyze opportunities of short segmental fixation of C2-C3 (C4) vertebrae with direct repositioning of bone fragments using polyaxial screws for traumatic C2 spondylolisthesis.
Material and Methods. Short mono- or bisegmental posterior fixation of C2-C3 (C4) vertebrae was performed in 7 patients with hangman’s fracture.
Results. Clinical examination in 6 and 12 months after surgery revealed persisting pain in the cervical spine and limitation of rotational motion to the left up to 20° in one patient. Other patients had the same range of rotational motion as before surgery. All patients were able to return to their previous work, including that related with heavy manual labor.
Conclusion. Posterior instrumental fixation of C2 transpedicularly and of C3 (C4) into the lateral masses is an effective and reliable reposition-fixation option of hangman’s fracture stabilization.
About the Authors
Aleksandr Vadimovich Gubin
Russian Research Center of Reparative Traumatology and Orthopaedics n.a. acad. G.A. Ilizarov, Kurgan
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Aleksandr Vladimirovich Burtsev
Russian Research Center of Reparative Traumatology and Orthopaedics n.a. acad. G.A. Ilizarov, Kurgan
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Sergey Olegovich Ryabikh
Russian Research Center of Reparative Traumatology and Orthopaedics n.a. acad. G.A. Ilizarov, Kurgan
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Abumi K, Shono Y, Ito M, et al. Complications of pedicle screw fixation in reconstructive surgery of the cervical spine. Spine. 2000;25:962-969. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1307252.
2. Barnes M, Liew S. The incidence of infection after posterior cervical spine surgery: a 10 year review. Global Spine J. 2012;02:003-006.
3. Boos N, Aebi M. Spinal Disorders: Fundamentals of Diagnosis and Treatment. Berlin; N.Y., 2008.
4. Clark CR, ed. The Cervical Spine. Philadelphia, 4th edition, 2005.
5. Duggal N, Chamberlain RH, Perez-Garza LE, et al. Hangman’s fracture: a biomechanical comparison of stabilization techniques. Spine. 2007;32:182-187.
6. Garfin SR, Botte MJ, Waters RL, et al. Complications in the use of the halo fixation device. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68:320-325.
7. Ivancic PC, Beauchman NN, Tweardy L. Effect of halo-vest components on stabilizing the injured cervical spine. Spine. 2009;34:167-175. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818e32ba.
8. Ma W, Xu R, Liu J, et al. Posterior short-segment fixation and fusion in unstable Hangman‘s fractures. Spine. 2011;36:529-533. doi: 10.1097/BRS. 0b013e3181d60067.
9. Samaha C, Lazennec JY, Laporte C, et al. Hangman’s fracture: the relationship between asymmetry and instability. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000; 82: 1046-1052.
10. Suchomel P, Choutka O. Reconstruction of Upper Cervical Spine and Craniocervical Junction. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2011.
11. Triggs KJ, Ballock RT, Lee TQ, et al. The effect of angled insertion on halo pin fixation. Spine. 1989;14:781-783.
12. Vaccaro AR, Madigan L, Bauerle WB, et al. Early halo immobilization of displaced traumatic spondylolisthesis of the axis. Spine. 2002;27:2229-2233.
13. Van Middendorp JJ, Sloof WB, Nellestein WR, et al. Incidence of and risk factors for complications associated with halo-vest immobilization: a prospective, descriptive cohort study of 239 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:71-79. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.G.01347.
Review
For citations:
Gubin A.V., Burtsev A.V., Ryabikh S.O. POSTERIOR FIXATION OF HANGMAN’S FRACTURES. Russian Journal of Spine Surgery (Khirurgiya Pozvonochnika). 2014;(4):15-19. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2014.4.15-19
Email this article 