CT in Spinal Trauma Emergencies

Perugini, S; Ghirlanda, Stefano; Rossi, Raymond P.; Bonetti, M.G.; Salvolini, U.

doi:10.1007/3-540-29941-6_24

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mechanisms of spinal fractures include simple flexion, flexion-distraction, flexion and compression, extension, "shearing" forces and rotation [ 19 ]. Of these, compression, distraction and rotation (axial torque) are the most important mechanisms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The higher incidence of type A fractures was possibly a result of the direct vertical force or axial loading caused by falling objects that caused compression fracture. Types B and C injuries tend to be caused by flexion violence, which is more common in motor vehicle collisions and falls [ 19 , 20 ]. The comparatively high incidence of type C lesions found in the non-earthquake-related cohort of this study is consistent with these mechanisms of fall and motor vehicle trauma.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Minor injuries compose about 16.95% of all spinal fractures [ 19 ]. The clinical importance of these injuries is still controversial [ 22 , 23 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Earthquake-related versus non-earthquake-related injuries in spinal injury patients: differentiation with multidetector computed tomography

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionIn recent years, several massive earthquakes have occurred across the globe. Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) is reliable in detecting spinal injuries. The purpose of this study was to compare the features of spinal injuries resulting from the Sichuan earthquake with those of non-earthquake-related spinal trauma using MDCT.MethodsFeatures of spinal injuries of 223 Sichuan earthquake-exposed patients and 223 non-earthquake-related spinal injury patients were retrospectively compared using MDCT. The date of non-earthquake-related spinal injury patients was collected from 1 May 2009 to 22 July 2009 to avoid the confounding effects of seasonal activity and clothing. We focused on anatomic sites, injury types and neurologic deficits related to spinal injuries. Major injuries were classified according to the grid 3-3-3 scheme of the Magerl (AO) classification system.ResultsA total of 185 patients (82.96%) in the earthquake-exposed cohort experienced crush injuries. In the earthquake and control groups, 65 and 92 patients, respectively, had neurologic deficits. The anatomic distribution of these two cohorts was significantly different (P < 0.001). Cervical spinal injuries were more common in the control group (risk ratio (RR) = 2.12, P < 0.001), whereas lumbar spinal injuries were more common in the earthquake-related spinal injuries group (277 of 501 injured vertebrae; 55.29%). The major types of injuries were significantly different between these cohorts (P = 0.002). Magerl AO type A lesions composed most of the lesions seen in both of these cohorts. Type B lesions were more frequently seen in earthquake-related spinal injuries (RR = 1.27), while we observed type C lesions more frequently in subjects with non-earthquake-related spinal injuries (RR = 1.98, P = 0.0029).ConclusionsSpinal injuries sustained in the Sichuan earthquake were located mainly in the lumbar spine, with a peak prevalence of type A lesions and a high occurrence of neurologic deficits. The anatomic distribution and type of spinal injuries that varied between earthquake-related and non-earthquake-related spinal injury groups were perhaps due to the different mechanism of injury.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%