Clinical Analysis and Treatment of Cervical Spine Injury

Kim, Eui Jung; Choi, Weon Gyu; Joo, Hyeong Geun; Moon, Hyeong Bong; Cho, Jae Hoon; Cho, Chang Won; Yoon, Sung Moon

Abstract

This study analyzed 88 patients who sustained a cervical spine injury during the past 4 years(Jan, 1993-May, 1996) in whom had 33 anterior, 21 posterior interventions were underwent and 34 remaining patients recieved conservative treatment with halovest. In 45 cases of upper cervical injuries, 16 operations were done. Among these, anterior approach was used in 3 patients and posterior approach in 13 patients. In 43 cases of lower cervical injuries, 39 operations were done. The anterior approach was used in 30 patients, posterior approach in 9 patients, and bilateral approached in remaing 4 cases. For patients with a predominent posterior ligamentous or osteoligamentous lesion, we selected anterior approach, when closed reduction was possible. Whenever the facet joint remained interlocked, a posterior approach was chosen. This report does not mentioned priority of anterior procedure at any case. Although clinical experience does not support the experimental data, we examined the reliability of anterior approach with use of internal fixation.