Measurement techniques for lower cervical spine injuries: Consensus statement of the Spine Trauma Study Group

Spine

Volumn 31, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 603-609

  Bono, Christopher M ^a   Vaccaro, Alexander R ^b   Fehlings, Michael ^c   Fisher, Charles ^d   Dvorak, Marcel ^d   Ludwig, Steven ^e   Harrop, James ^f  

^a BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d Division of Spine   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Dislocation; Fracture; Lower cervical spine; Measurements; Trauma

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CERVICAL SPINE INJURY; CERVICAL SPINE RADIOGRAPHY; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONSENSUS; HUMAN; IMAGING; KYPHOSIS; MEASUREMENT; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPINAL CORD COMPRESSION; STANDARDIZATION; SUBLUXATION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VERTEBRA BODY; CERVICAL SPINE; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; INJURY; METHODOLOGY; ORTHOPEDICS; PATIENT CARE; RADIOGRAPHY; SPINE INJURY; STANDARD;

CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; HUMANS; ORTHOPEDICS; PATIENT CARE MANAGEMENT; SPINAL INJURIES;

EID: 33645516572     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000201273.39058.dd     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Cailliet R, et al. Cobb method or Harrison posterior tangent method: which to choose for lateral cervical radiographic analysis. Spine 2000;25:2072-8.
2. Troyanovich SJ, Stroink AR, Kattner KA, et al. Does anterior plating maintain cervical lordosis versus conventional fusion techniques? A retrospective analysis of patients receiving single-level fusions. J Spinal Disord Tech 2002;15:69-74.
3. Loder RT. The sagittal profile of the cervical and lumbosacral spine in Scheuermann thoracic kyphosis. J Spinal Disord 2001;14:226-31.
4. Hilibrand AS, Tannenbaum DA, Graziano GP, et al. The sagittal alignment of the cervical spine in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 1995;15:627-32.
5. Cannada LK, Scherping SC, Yoo JU, et al. Pseudarthrosis of the cervical spine: a comparison of radiographic diagnostic measures. Spine 2003;28:46-51.
6. Frobin W, Leivseth G, Biggemann M, et al. Vertebral height, disc height, posteroanterior displacement and dens-atlas gap in the cervical spine: precision measurement protocol and normal data. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2002;17:423-31.
7. Prasad SS, O'Malley M, Caplan M, et al. MRI measurement of the cervical spine and their correlation to Pavlov's ratio. Spine 2003;28:1263-8.
8. Blackley HR, Plank ID, Robertson PA. Determining the sagittal dimension of the canal of the cervical spine: the reliability of ratios of anatomical measurements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999;81:110-2.
9. Lu DS, Cheung KM, Yue KS, et al. Correction method for determining anteroposterior diameter of the cervical spinal canal on lateral radiographs. J Spinal Disord 2001;14:133-4.
10. Rao SC, Fehlings MG. The optimal radiologic method for assessing spinal canal compromise and cord compression in patients with cervical spinal cord injury: I. An evidence-based analysis of the published literature. Spine 1999;24:598-604.
11. Fehlings MG, Rao SC, Tator CH, et al. The optimal radiologic method for assessing spinal canal compromise and cord compression in patients with cervical spinal cord injury: II. Results of a multicenter study. Spine 1999;24:605-13.
12. Kuhns LR, Strouse PJ. Facet coverage in children on flexion lateral cervical radiographs. Spine 1999;24:339-41.