Fractures and dislocations of the cervicothoracic junction.

Department of Orthopaedics, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, Middlesex, UK.
Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques (Impact Factor: 1.89). 01/2006; 18(6):499-505. DOI: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000156831.76055.f0
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Presented is a retrospective review of case notes and all available imaging studies in seven patients with acute fractures-dislocations of the cervicothoracic junction. Imaging studies included radiographs (five cases), computed tomography (six cases), and magnetic resonance imaging (seven cases). The study group consisted of five men and two women with mean age at presentation of 43.6 years (range 25-69 years). Four patients had been in road traffic accidents, whereas three patients had had falls. Three patients sustained complete neurologic deficits with no recovery, whereas the remaining four had no abnormal neurology or mild deficit at presentation and were normal at final follow-up. The injury was missed initially in three cases. The commonest injury pattern was traumatic spondylolisthesis of C7 on T1 with multilevel neural arch fractures, resulting in increased anteroposterior canal dimensions (four cases). Bilateral pars fractures of C7 and pure facet dislocation were seen in one case each. Neurologic deficit was related to the degree of anterior displacement of C7 on T1. Fracture-dislocation at the cervicothoracic junction is a rare injury with a variation of injury patterns and neurologic outcome.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We describe three young patients who had strokes in an unusual setting; two patients during coitus and 1 patient after a bout of laughter. Two patients had a patent foramen ovale and one patient developed vertebral artery dissection during coitus. The underlying stroke mechanisms in the three patients are discussed. These cases highlight the importance of questioning the events preceding stroke onset.
    Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 09/2007; 14(8):786-7. DOI:10.1016/j.jocn.2006.05.012 · 1.32 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) is often inadequately visualized on lateral cervical X-rays due to anatomic variations and technical factors. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the swimmer's view and arm traction could enhance the image field on the standard lateral cervical (SLC) X-ray. The study was conducted in a university hospital in October 2007 with 40 volunteers. SLC X-ray, lateral cervical X-ray in the swimming position, and lateral cervical X-ray with arm traction were performed in the supine position. The enhancements in the image fields were analyzed. There was a statistically significant difference for the increases in the view of cervical spines between SLC X-ray (12.60 +/- 7.48) and either lateral cervical X-ray with arm traction (21.73 +/- 9.78; p = 0.000) or in the swimming position (21.20 +/- 14.19; p = 0.001). Both arm traction and swimming position increased the field of view by approximately 9 mm. Increased visualization of the cervical spine occurred for 24 of the 40 participants using the arm traction view (60.0%) and 23 participants (57.5%) using the swimming position view-results found to be statistically similar according to the >/= 1/3 caudal vertebral height visualized (p = 0.902). Using the lateral cervical X-ray view, the number of cervical vertebrae visualized differed according to body mass index (BMI)-seven cervical vertebrae were visualized in participants with a BMI < 25 and six vertebrae were visualized in participants with a BMI >/= 25 (p = 0.007). Lateral cervical X-rays with arm traction and swimming position enhance the view of SLC X-rays. An initial SLC X-ray including the lower third of the cervical spine (with C7), arm traction, and swimming position may be beneficial in visualizing the CTJ. However, patients with an increased BMI are unlikely to benefit from all three methods.
    International Journal of Emergency Medicine 06/2010; 3(2):85-90. DOI:10.1007/s12245-010-0159-y
  • Article: Commentary.
    Surgical Neurology 08/2009; DOI:10.1016/j.surneu.2009.03.022 · 1.67 Impact Factor

Preview (2 Sources)

Available from