Anterior reduction and interbody fusion fixation has not been compared directly with posterior reduction and short-segmental pedicle screw fixation for lower cervical dislocation, and so consensus is lacking as to which is the optimal method. The purpose of this paper is to compare long-term outcomes of the anterior versus posterior approach for traumatic cervical dislocation with spinal cord injury. One hundred and fifty-nine patients could be followed for more than 10 years (follow-up rate 84.1%). Ninety-two patients underwent anterior reduction and interbody fusion and fixation, and 67 patients underwent posterior reduction and short-segmental pedicle screw fixation. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the American Spinal Injury Association grading (ASIA), Odom's criteria, cervical kyphosis, operative parameters, and surgical or post-operative complications were evaluated. Patients were followed for 10 to 17 years. There was no significant difference in main JOA scores, NDI scores or ASIA scores between the two groups at follow-up. The posterior approach was associated with greater loss of alignment by two years (P = 0.012) and at final follow-up (P < 0.001). The posterior approach group had more blood loss (P < 0.001), longer operation times (P < 0.001), longer hospital stays (P < 0.001) and fewer complications than the anterior approach group. the anterior approach is better than the posterior approach for preserving cervical lordosis, which is associated with a better long-term effect. Lower cervical dislocation with locked facets is common in acute cervical injury. This often leads to the abnormal alignment of the cervical spine, cervical instability and significant functional disability 1-3. Such injury often requires early surgical treatment, with the goal of decompression and reduction. The surgical approaches for lower cervical fracture-dislocation are highly variable and include anterior, posterior, and combined anterior and posterior approaches 4-11. The anterior approach surgery is the most commonly used method, perhaps because it is relatively simple, is familiar to surgeons, and has achieved good results 4,5,11. More importantly, anterior decompression is necessary for patients with disc herniation. However, in some cases, anterior reduction is difficult and also requires posterior reduction 4,12-15. Reduction is easier to achieve with the posterior approach and can provide more stable fixation 7,8,16 , but whether it has a better outcome over a long period of time is unknown. Combined anterior and posterior approaches can not only adequately decompress, but also provide better stability 9. However, the combined approach increases surgical trauma and complexity. Changes in position during surgery also increase the risk of nerve injury 17. Therefore, anterior alone and posterior alone approaches are more common. Kwon compared anterior cervical plate fixation with posterior lateral mass screw-plate and/or interspinous wire fixation for unilateral facet inj...