↓ Skip to main content

Retrospective analysis of a case series of patients with traumatic injuries to the craniocervical junction

Overview of attention for article published in Einstein (São Paulo), December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Retrospective analysis of a case series of patients with traumatic injuries to the craniocervical junction
Published in
Einstein (São Paulo), December 2016
DOI 10.1590/s1679-45082016ao3396
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luiz Adriano Esteves, Andrei Fernandes Joaquim, Helder Tedeschi

Abstract

To evaluate the correlation between the treatment, the characteristics of the lesions and the clinical outcome of patients with traumatic injuries to the craniocervical junction. This was a retrospective study of patients treated conservatively or surgically between 2010 and 2013 with complete data sets. We analyzed 37 patients, 73% were men with mean age of 41.7 years. Of these, 32% were submitted to initial surgical treatment and 68% received conservative treatment. Seven (29%) underwent surgery subsequently. In the surgical group, there were seven cases of odontoid type II fractures, two cases of fracture of posterior elements of the axis, one case of C1-C2 dislocation with associated fractured C2, one case of occipitocervical dislocation, and one case of combined C1 and C2 fractures, and facet dislocation. Only one patient had neurological déficit that improved after treatment. Two surgical complications were seen: a liquoric fistula and one surgical wound infection (reaproached). In the group treated conservatively, odontoid fractures (eight cases) and fractures of the posterior elements of C2 (five cases) were more frequent. In two cases, in addition to the injuries of the craniocervical junction, there were fractures in other segments of the spine. None of the patients who underwent conservative treatment presented neurological deterioration. Although injuries of craniocervical junction are relatively rare, they usually involve fractures of the odontoid and the posterior elements of the axis. Our results recommend early surgical treatment for type II odontoid fractures and ligament injuries, the conservative treatment for other injuries. Avaliar a correlação entre o tratamento, as características das lesões e o resultado clínico em pacientes com lesões traumáticas na junção craniocervical. Estudo retrospectivo de pacientes maiores de 18 anos tratados de forma conservadora ou cirúrgica, entre 2010 e 2013. Foram analisados 37 pacientes, 73% eram do sexo masculino e a média de idade foi de 41,7 anos. Inicialmente 32% dos pacientes foram submetidos a tratamento cirúrgico, e 68% foram submetidos a tratamento conservador. Sete pacientes (29%) do grupo conservador foram submetidos posteriormente à cirurgia. No grupo cirúrgico, houve sete casos de fratura de odontóide tipo II, dois casos de fratura de elementos posteriores do áxis, um caso de luxação C1-C2, um caso de deslocamento occipito-cervical e um caso de fraturas de C1 e C2 e luxação facetária. Um paciente apresentava déficit neurológico, melhorando após o tratamento. Houve duas complicações pós-cirúrgicas, uma fístula liquórica e uma infecção de ferida operatória (reabordada). No grupo conservador, predominaram as fraturas do odontóide (oito) e dos elementos posteriores de C2 (cinco). Em dois casos, havia também fraturas em outros segmentos da coluna. Nenhum dos pacientes deste grupo apresentou deterioração neurológica. As lesões da junção craniocervical são raras, sendo mais frequentes as fraturas do odontóide e dos elementos posteriores do áxis. Nossos resultados recomendam o tratamento cirúrgico precoce para os pacientes com fraturas do odontóide tipo II e lesões ligamentares, e tratamento conservador para os demais pacientes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Lecturer 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 6 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 32%
Neuroscience 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 7 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 January 2017.
All research outputs
#9,987,455
of 12,477,729 outputs
Outputs from Einstein (São Paulo)
#78
of 135 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,654
of 357,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Einstein (São Paulo)
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,477,729 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 135 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 357,383 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.