EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 10 (2024) SICOT-J, 10 (2024) 4 Full HTML
Open Access
Review
Issue
SICOT-J
Volume 10, 2024
Article Number 4
Number of page(s) 9
Section Spine
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2023036
Published online 18 January 2024

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2024

Licence Creative CommonsThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Introduction

Lower cervical facet dislocations are unstable injuries that affect the anterior and posterior columns of the cervical spine [1]. Allen-Ferguson classified lower cervical facet dislocations as flexion-distraction injuries, which are further subdivided into flexion sprain, unilateral facet dislocation, bilateral facet dislocation with up to 50% displacement (perched facets), and complete dislocation with >50% displacement [1, 2]. They are associated with variable degrees of spinal cord injury (SCI) [3, 4]. Lower cervical facet dislocations that present before 3 weeks are considered acute while those presenting after 3 weeks are considered old, chronic, or neglected [5–7].

While closed reduction for acute injuries is often successful, for lower cervical facet dislocations presenting with a delay beyond three weeks, fibrotic tissues and bony fusion around the injured facets and uncovertebral joints represent a challenge to reduction [7, 8] (Figure 1). The reported success rate of closed reduction for acute injuries cannot be replicated to neglected cases [9, 10]. Neglected injuries require an adequate surgical release for reduction [11, 12]. There is no established standard treatment approach for neglected lower cervical facet dislocations owing to the rarity of cases and lack of quality studies to guide treatment decision-making. The literature on neglected lower cervical facet dislocations is limited to case reports and few retrospective studies. A comprehensive review of this condition is lacking. We reviewed 20 articles accounting for 165 patients with neglected lower cervical facet dislocations published in the English literature, and we elaborated a comprehensive synthesis of the epidemiology, clinical and radiological presentation, and variable treatment techniques and approaches to these neglected injuries. The overview of cases reported in the literature is portrayed in Table 1.

thumbnail Figure 1

C-spine CT-scan sagittal slices image demonstrating a neglected C6–C7 facet dislocation. Note the osteocartilaginous tissues bridging C6 and C7 (red arrow) and locking of facets (red arrowhead).

Table 1

Characteristics of published cases with neglected lower cervical facet dislocations.

Epidemiology

Around 74% of patients with lower cervical facet dislocations with a delay beyond three weeks occurred in middle-aged adults (30s–50s) and most series, male patients are 2–3 folds compared to females [5, 7, 13–16]. The most affected levels are C5–C6 (43.0%) and C6–C7 (24.8%), while C2–C3 and C3–C4 are the least affected [7, 13–16]. Most of these injuries are initially missed or managed inadequately with non-operative measures [5, 7, 14, 15, 17]. In reviewed articles, missed injuries and those treated with ineffective non-operative options accounted for 52.1% and 36.2% respectively. Cervical spine injuries are missed due to incomplete clinical and radiological assessment, especially for multiply injured patients [7, 18–21].

Other factors leading to the delayed presentation of lower cervical injuries include poverty, negligence, and the lack of resources (skilled surgeons, diagnostic and therapeutic infrastructures) [13]. Among reported cases, 11.7% of patients with mild to moderate symptoms did not seek medical attention and consulted later when symptoms persisted or complications arose (Table 1).

Clinical presentation

Neurological deficits, persistent neck pain, and neck stiffness are common complaints from patients with neglected lower cervical facet dislocations [5, 7, 12–14, 16, 21]. Most patients report previous trauma events (falls, road traffic accidents, sports injuries, or heavy objects falling on their heads) [7, 14, 16, 22]. Few patients present with gross deformity [11, 23]. Neurological deficits range from minor to complete quadriplegia [7, 13, 16]. Some patients with neglected lower cervical facet dislocation have no neurological deficit [11, 12, 24, 25] or present isolated radicular involvement [5, 13, 14]. Reviewed articles on patients with neglected lower cervical facet dislocations revealed that 84.2% of cases had neurological deficits and at least 30% presented with persistent neck pain and/or neck stiffness (Table 1).

Detailed history, including previous treatments, is the key to understanding the patient’s complaints, general health status, and expectations. The examination of the neck checks for deformity and patient-controlled range of motion. The neurological examination evaluates sensory loss, muscle weakness, spasticity, hyperreflexia, abnormal plantar reflexes, and bowel/bladder function [13]. Frankel grading [26] and ASIA impairment scale [27] are widely accepted to describe the neurological status.

Imaging

For neglected lower cervical facet dislocations, imaging is essential for diagnosis and surgical planning [12, 15]. The goal of imaging is to delineate the affected level, the alignment and stability, the extent of cord compression, eventual herniated disc fragments, and other changes related to trauma or degenerative process [8, 11, 12, 15, 28]. Plain radiographs and computed tomography (CT) demonstrate variable degrees of anterolisthesis, sagittal malalignment, incongruent facet joint, and increased interspinous distance [29]. These modalities help to rule out associated fractures of facets, endplates, lamina, or spinous processes that influence the planning in of terms approach, reduction, and fixation technique [30, 31]. Patient-controlled dynamic views help to differentiate between stiff and flexible deformities [6]. The CT scan provides a three-dimensional pattern of the injury and delineates eventual bony fusion that requires surgical release before reduction [7, 12] (Figure 2).

thumbnail Figure 2

C-spine CT imaging showing neglected dislocation C4–C5. Note the anterolisthesis C4–C5 (red arrow) and bony fusion of the facet (red arrowhead).

The Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan is the imaging of choice to assess the eventual disc herniation, spinal canal narrowing, spinal cord compressionand signal changes, and posterior ligamentous complex injury [13, 15]. CT myelogram is an alternative to MRI when the latter is contraindicated [3].

Treatment goals and expectations

The treatment for neglected lower cervical spine consists of delicate major surgical procedures, often in multiple stages [8, 13, 30, 32]. The core treatment objectives are the decompression of neural elements, restoring stability and alignment, and achieving solid fusion [8]. Neck pain and malalignment significantly improve after successful surgical stabilization and fusion [5, 7, 14, 22, 33]. Full recovery of SCI is possible but cannot be guaranteed as most of these injuries yield variable neurological outcomes post-surgery, with the majority improving by one or two Frankel grades [5, 7, 13, 16]. In addition, neurological deterioration is possible [17]. Tables 1 and 2 portray the neurological outcome for reported cases. Complications and events to anticipate include bleeding, prolonged hospital stay, need for ICU admission, wound complications, pseudoarthrosis, and fixation failure (Table 3). When surgical risks outweigh the benefits, conservative treatment is preferred [11, 34].

Table 2

Neurological outcomes for patients with SCI after at least 6 months follow-up.

Table 3

List of publications and approaches to neglected lower cervical facet dislocations.

Treatment techniques and approaches

Closed reduction and surgical stabilization

Closed reduction for lower cervical facet dislocations requires craniocervical traction using Gardner-Well or Crutchfield tongs under conscious sedation [35]. It is indicated for alert and cooperative patients [10]. The success rate of closed reduction for acute lower cervical facet dislocation is approximately 80% [10] and decreases to 20% for delays beyond 72 h [9]. For lower cervical facet dislocations presenting after 3 weeks, closed reduction is likely to fail [5, 7, 13, 15, 17]. We recorded 77.0% failure of closed reduction attempts (Figure 3).

thumbnail Figure 3

Summary of approaches used neglected lower cervical facet dislocations. (*cases underwent corpectomy and in situ fixation; A: Anterior; P: Posterior; A–P: Anterior–Posterior; A–P–A: Anterior–Posterior–Anterior; P–A: Posterior–Anterior; P–A–P: Posterior–Anterior–Posterior; A–P–A–P: Posterior–Anterior–Posterior).

Despite the high failure rate, there was no neurological deterioration related to this procedure. Some authors avoided closed reduction attempts in cases with severe spinal canal narrowing or disc herniation [8, 15]. After successful closed reduction, most cases undergo anterior cervical discectomy and fusion [5, 6, 13, 15, 36].

Posterior (P) and Posterior–Anterior (P–A) surgical approaches and techniques

The posterior approach to the cervical spine aims at releasing fibrotic and osteocartilaginous tissues around dislocated facet joints [5, 6, 12, 17, 22, 25, 32, 37]. After effective release, the techniques for reduction include levering the facet [15, 22], distracting the spinous processes [7], or craniocervical traction assistance [14]. Partial facetectomy is helpful when facets cannot be unlocked [5, 6, 14, 22]. After successful reduction, posterior fixation with lateral mass screws follows [6, 23]. Spinous process wiring is another alternative especially when the reduction does not require facetectomy [6, 14, 22, 38]. Benzel–Kesterson [39] and Rogers [40] techniques are widely used for spinous process wiring. Fractures of the spinous process or lamina are contraindications to this technique [31]. Adequate bone decortication and grafting before wound closure optimize conditions for fusion [23].

The use of isolated posterior fixation, though uncommon, has been reported [5, 6, 23]. In case of failure to achieve reduction, or when more stability is desired, the additional anterior procedure is warranted [6, 14, 17, 22, 25, 37]. After posterior wound closure, the patient is gently flipped in the supine position for the anterior surgery consisting of cervical discectomy to decompress neural tissues [12, 14]. Caspar distractor and interbody distractor are used to complete the reduction [7, 41]. Fluoroscopy images confirm the reduction before the final fixation with an interbody cage or iliac bone graft, supplemented by anterior plating [6, 14, 17, 22, 25, 37].

Anterior (A) and Anterior–Posterior (A–P) surgical techniques

Lower cervical facet dislocations are associated with a high rate of intervertebral disc disruption and herniation [10]. Though the posterior approach is preferred for irreducible facet dislocations, the anterior approach is ideal for decompression of neural tissues, especially in cases with disc herniation [8, 12]. After discectomy, caspar distractor, interbody distractor, or craniocervical traction help to obtain reduction which is confirmed with fluoroscopy before the final fixation with an interbody cage or iliac bone graft, supplemented by anterior plating [6–8, 41]. Anterior cervical corpectomy and strut cage fixation is another option for cases with fractured vertebral endplates and those with inaccessible disc fragments [28, 30].

When anterior reduction maneuvers fail, or more stability is desired, the posterior approach is warranted for further release reduction and fixation with lateral mass screws or spinous process wiring [7] (Figure 4).

thumbnail Figure 4

Neglected dislocation of C5–C6 (slide A). Reduction and combined anterior–posterior fixation (slide B).

The need for more than two surgical procedures

Due to the reduction challenges, neglected lower cervical facet dislocations often required three or four procedures. Anterior–Posterior–Anterior (A–P–A) [8, 13, 15, 30], Posterior–Anterior–Posterior (P–A–P) [12, 32], and Anterior–Posterior–Anterior–Posterior (A–P–A–P) [32] procedures are reported in the literature. For all these cases, the first or second procedures did not achieve reduction and it required further procedures.

Failure to reduce the dislocation with the anterior procedure warrants a posterior approach for further release and reduction [8, 13, 15, 30]. In this scenario, a temporary interbody spacer cage helps to maintain stability while proceeding with the posterior surgical release, reduction, and fixation [8]. It requires a third anterior procedure to complete the anterior fixation and fusion [8, 13, 15, 30].

To avoid the third anterior procedure, surgeons tried different techniques [42–44]. Ding et al. [7] secured the cancellous bone graft in the interbody space with a gelatin foam and longus colli muscles, and proceeded with posterior surgery to reduce and fix dislocated facets with lateral mass screws.

In the same line, for cases where it was not possible to get the reduction through the posterior approach, they proceeded with the anterior decompression and further release to achieve the reduction, and it required a third posterior procedure to complete the posterior fixation [12, 32].

In general, anterior surgery for neglected lower cervical facet dislocations is aimed mainly at decompressing neural structures rather than reduction. For cases without disc herniation, authors advocated for starting with the posterior approach which, in most cases, achieved complete or near-complete reduction [5, 13, 14, 32]. The anterior approach is largely aimed at spinal decompression rather than reduction [8, 12].

These additional surgical procedures represent a burden and risk to patients, including but not limited to neurological deterioration, bleeding, radiation exposure, infection, airway complications, anesthesia complications, and cost. Longer operative time of more than 4 h and excessive blood loss were other drawbacks [8, 12, 13].

Conservative treatment, partial reduction, and in situ fusion

Lower cervical facet dislocations presenting with delay are sometimes found incidentally after an unrelated event. Thompson and Hohl [11] treated conservatively an asymptomatic alcoholic patient with bilateral cervical facet dislocation who presented years after the index trauma. Shah et al. [34] reported 2 cases of neglected cervical facet dislocations that were managed conservatively. For all these cases, there was radiological fusion with moderate deformity, and without neurological deficit (Figure 5).

thumbnail Figure 5

Dynamic radiographs of the cervical spine showing neglected dislocation C5–C6 treated conservatively. Note the stability of the dislocated segment and anterior auto-fusion.

Conversely, corpectomy of the caudal vertebra and fusion in situ is an alternative technique for neglected lower cervical dislocations [16, 33]. It restored the alignment, and patients’ neurology improved significantly (Figure 6). Even after both posterior and anterior release, failure to achieve reduction may necessitate recourse to in situ fixation and fusion [30].

thumbnail Figure 6

Irreducible neglected dislocation C6–C7 (slide A). Corpectomy C7 and fixation in situ using mesh cage and plate (slide B).

Limitations

This review considered exclusively the English literature about neglected lower cervical facet dislocations that are mainly case reports and few retrospective studies. Being a narrative review, we cannot have a sound comparison of the techniques and approaches to these injuries. Most studies reported good outcomes and few postoperative complications. However, retrospective studies tend to underestimate spine surgery complications compared to prospective studies [45]. While most of the reviewed publications involved the Asian population, the occurrence of neglected lower cervical facet dislocations in other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is underreported, and we could not address them in this review.

Conclusion

Delayed presentation of lower cervical facet dislocations remains a rare entity with notable controversies and variability around treatment techniques and approaches. Most patients are middle-aged adults, predominantly males. The most affected levels are C5–C6 and C6–C7. Delays are due to missed injuries, ineffective non-operative treatment, and negligence in seeking medical care. Patients present with variable degree of neurological deficits, persistent neck pain, and neck stiffness. Radiological assessment is important to delineate the injury morphology and changes related to the delay. Reduction of these injuries is challenging, and closed reduction is likely to fail. They required a variable combination of anterior and posterior surgical approaches for reduction and fixation. Reported approaches and techniques generally yielded improvement in pain, alignment, and neurology. The posterior approach aimed at surgical release and reduction while the anterior approach aimed at decompressing neural structures. Fusion in situ is an alternative to consider for failed reduction while conservative treatment may work for auto-fused cases. Given existing controversies, the need for quality prospective studies to determine the best treatment approach for lower cervical facet dislocations presenting with delay is evident.

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to report.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific funding.

Ethical approval

The ethical approval was not required.

Author contributions

L. Nkurikiyumukiza: Conceptualization, methodology, writing the original draft. A.M. Buteera: Supervision, reviewing, and editing. M.M. El-Sharkawi: Conceptualization, supervision, reviewing, and editing.

References

  1. Allen BL, Ferguson RL, Lehmann TR, Oʼbrien RP (1982) A mechanistic classification of closed, indirect fractures and dislocations of the lower cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 7(1), 1–27. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Radcliff K, Thomasson BG (2013) Flexion-distraction injuries of the subaxial cervical spine. Semin Spine Surg 25(1), 45–56. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Mahale Y, Sliver JR, Henderson NJ (1993) Neurological complications of the reduction of cervical spine dislocations. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75-B(3), 403–409. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Vaccaro AR, Falatyn SP, Flanders AE, Balderston RA, Northrup BE, Cotler JM (1999) Magnetic resonance evaluation of the intervertebral disc, spinal ligaments, and spinal cord before and after closed traction reduction of cervical spine dislocations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24(12), 1210–1217. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hassan M (2002) Treatment of old dislocations of the lower cervical spine. Int Orthop 26(5), 263–267. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Srivastava S, Aggarwal R, Bhosale S, Nemade P (2016) Neglected dislocation in sub-axial cervical spine: case series and a suggested treatment protocol. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine 7(3), 140. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ding C, Wu T-K, Gong Q, Li T, Ma L-T, Wang B-Y, Deng Y-X, Liu H (2017) Anterior release and nonstructural bone grafting and posterior fixation for old lower cervical dislocations with locked facets. Medicine (Baltimore) 96(46), e8809. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Payer M, Tessitore E (2007) Delayed surgical management of a traumatic bilateral cervical facet dislocation by an anterior–posterior–anterior approach. J Clin Neurosci 14(8), 782–786. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kahn A, Leggon R, Lindsey RW (1998) Cervical facet dislocation: management following delayed diagnosis. Orthopedics 21(10), 1089–1091. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Gelb DE, Hadley MN, Aarabi B, Dhall SS, Hurlbert RJ, Rozzelle CJ, Ryken TC, Theodore N, Walters BC (2013) Initial closed reduction of cervical spinal fracture-dislocation injuries. Neurosurgery 72(Supp. 2), 73–83. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Thompson GH, Hohl M (1978) Healed untreated anterior cervical spine dislocation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 3(2), 113–115. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Srivastava A, Soh RCC, Ee GWW, Tan SB, Tow BPB (2014) Management of the neglected and healed bilateral cervical facet dislocation. Eur Spine J 23(8), 1612–1616. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Prabhat V, Boruah T, Lal H, Kumar R, Dagar A, Sahu H (2017) Management of post-traumatic neglected cervical facet dislocation. J Clin Orthop Trauma 8(2), 125–130. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Liu P, Zhao J, Liu F, Liu M, Fan W (2008) A novel operative approach for the treatment of old distractive flexion injuries of subaxial cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(13), 1459–1464. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Jiang X, Cao Y, Yao Y, Chen X, Guan J, Zhang F (2016) Surgical management of old lower cervical dislocations with locked facet. Clin Spine Surg A Spine Publ 29(6), E319–E324. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Miao DC, Zhang B, Lei T, Shen Y (2017) Clinical efficacy of anterior partial corpectomy and titanium mesh fusion and internal fixation for treatment of old fracture dislocation of the lower cervical spine. Med Sci Monit 23, 5675–5682. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Goni V, Gopinathan NR, Krishnan V, Kumar R, Kumar A (2013) Management of neglected cervical spine dislocation: a study of six cases. Chin J Traumatol 16(4), 212–215. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Scher AT (1981) Unrecognised fractures and dislocations of the cervical spine. Spinal Cord 19(1), 25–30. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. King SW, Hosler BK, King MA, Eiselt EW (2002) Missed cervical spine fracture-dislocations: the importance of clinical and radiographic assessment. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 25(4), 263–269. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Platzer P, Hauswirth N, Jaindl M, Chatwani S, Vecsei V, Gaebler C (2006) Delayed or missed diagnosis of cervical spine injuries. J Trauma 61(1), 150–155. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gelalis ID, Christoforou G, Arnaoutoglou CM, Politis AN, Manoudis G, Xenakis TA (2009) Misdiagnosed bilateral C5–C6 dislocation causing cervical spine instability: a case report. Cases J 2(1), 6149. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Jain AK, Dhammi IK, Singh AP, Mishra P (2010) Neglected traumatic dislocation of the subaxial cervical spine. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92-B(2), 246–249. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Rajasekaran S, Subbiah M, Shetty AP (2011) Computer navigation assisted fixation in neglected C2–C3 dislocation in an adult. Indian J Orthop 45(5), 465–469. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Madhavan P, Monk J, Wilson-Macdonald J, Fairbank J (2001) Instability due to unrecognised fracture-subluxations after apparently isolated injuries of the cervical spine. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83(4), 486–490. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. Jain M, Khuntia S, Rao B (2020) Neglected bilateral facet dislocation of the cervical spine with intact neurology: reduction technique. Asian J Neurosurg 15(3), 773–776. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Frankel HL, Hancock DO, Hyslop G, Melzak J, Michaelis LS, Ungar GH, Vernon JDS, Walsh JJ (1969) The value of postural reduction in the initial management of closed injuries of the spine with paraplegia and tetraplegia. Spinal Cord 7(3), 179–192. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. ASIA-ISCOS (2019) International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) (Revised 2019). American Spinal Injury Association. [Google Scholar]
  28. Haimovich L, Uri O, Bickels J, Laufer G, Gutman G, Folman Y, Behrbalk E (2020) Bilateral traumatic C6–C7 facet dislocation with C6 spondyloptosis and large disk sequestration in a neurologically intact patient. SAGE Open Med Case Rep 8, 2050313X2092918. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. O’Shaughnessy J, Grenier J-M, Stern PJ (2014) A delayed diagnosis of bilateral facet dislocation of the cervical spine: a case report. J Can Chiropr Assoc 58(1), 45–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Marasini RP (2020) Management of neglected post-traumatic bilateral facet dislocation of sub-axial cervical spine: a case series. J Nepal Med Assoc 58(226), 427–429. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lukhele M (1994) Fractures of the vertebral lamina associated with unifacet and bifacet cervical spine dislocations. S Afr J Surg 32(3), 112–114. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Bartels RHMA, Donk R (2002) Delayed management of traumatic bilateral cervical facet dislocation: surgical strategy. J Neurosurg Spine 97(3), 362–365. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lukhele M (2005) Lower cervical spine dislocation presenting late. Orthop Proc 87-B(Supp_III), 290. [Google Scholar]
  34. Shah K, Gadiya A, Nene A (2018) Autostabilization of neglected high-grade fracture–dislocation in the cervical spine. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine 9(4), 274. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Cotler JM, Herbison GJ, Nasuti JF, Ditunno JF, An H, Wolff BE (1993) Closed reduction of traumatic cervical spine dislocation using traction weights up to 140 pounds. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18(3), 386–390. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Bechet FR, Stassen P, Scorpie D, Della Siega T (2022) Delayed treatment of traumatic cervical dislocation: a case report and literature review. Case Rep Orthop 2022, 1–6. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Shimada T, Ohtori S, Inoue G, Nakamura J, Nakada I, Saiki H, Chang SH, Kawamura K, Takahashi K, Sugiyama H (2013) Delayed surgical treatment for a traumatic bilateral cervical facet joint dislocation using a posterior-anterior approach: a case report. J Med Case Rep 7(1), 9. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Elnady B, El-Morshidy E, El-Meshtawi M, Shawky A (2017) Pediatric cervical spine injuries with neurological deficits, treatment options, and potential for recovery. SICOT J 3, 53. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Benzel EC, Kesterson L (1989) Posterior cervical interspinous compression wiring and fusion for mid to low cervical spinal injuries. J Neurosurg 70(6), 893–899. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Rogers WA (1942) Treatment of fracture-dislocation of the cervical spine. JBJS 24(2), 245–258. [Google Scholar]
  41. Payer M (2005) Immediate open anterior reduction and antero-posterior fixation/fusion for bilateral cervical locked facets. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 147(5), 509–514. [Google Scholar]
  42. Feng G, Hong Y, Li L, et al. (2012) Anterior decompression and nonstructural bone grafting and posterior fixation for cervical facet dislocation with traumatic disc herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(25), 2082–2088. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Song K-J, Park H, Lee K-B (2013) Treatment of irreducible bilateral cervical facet fracture-dislocation with a prolapsed disc using a prefixed polyetheretherketone cage and plate system. Asian Spine J 7(2), 111. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Allred CD, Sledge JB (2001) Irreducible dislocations of the cervical spine with a prolapsed disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(17), 1927–1930. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Nasser R, Yadla S, Maltenfort MG, Harrop JS, Anderson DG, Vaccaro AR, Sharan AD, Ratliff JK (2010) Complications in spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 13(2), 144–157. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cite this article as: Nkurikiyumukiza L, Buteera AM & El-Sharkawi MM (2024) Delayed presentation of lower cervical facet dislocations: What to learn from past reports?. SICOT-J 10, 4

All Tables

Table 1

Characteristics of published cases with neglected lower cervical facet dislocations.

In the text
Table 2

Neurological outcomes for patients with SCI after at least 6 months follow-up.

In the text
Table 3

List of publications and approaches to neglected lower cervical facet dislocations.

In the text

All Figures

thumbnail Figure 1

C-spine CT-scan sagittal slices image demonstrating a neglected C6–C7 facet dislocation. Note the osteocartilaginous tissues bridging C6 and C7 (red arrow) and locking of facets (red arrowhead).
In the text
thumbnail Figure 2

C-spine CT imaging showing neglected dislocation C4–C5. Note the anterolisthesis C4–C5 (red arrow) and bony fusion of the facet (red arrowhead).
In the text
thumbnail Figure 3

Summary of approaches used neglected lower cervical facet dislocations. (*cases underwent corpectomy and in situ fixation; A: Anterior; P: Posterior; A–P: Anterior–Posterior; A–P–A: Anterior–Posterior–Anterior; P–A: Posterior–Anterior; P–A–P: Posterior–Anterior–Posterior; A–P–A–P: Posterior–Anterior–Posterior).
In the text
thumbnail Figure 4

Neglected dislocation of C5–C6 (slide A). Reduction and combined anterior–posterior fixation (slide B).
In the text
thumbnail Figure 5

Dynamic radiographs of the cervical spine showing neglected dislocation C5–C6 treated conservatively. Note the stability of the dislocated segment and anterior auto-fusion.
In the text
thumbnail Figure 6

Irreducible neglected dislocation C6–C7 (slide A). Corpectomy C7 and fixation in situ using mesh cage and plate (slide B).
In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.