3.8 Article

Spinal Gunshot Wounds: Pattern and Associated Lesions in Civilians

期刊

ASIAN SPINE JOURNAL
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 648-655

出版社

KOREAN SOC SPINE SURGERY
DOI: 10.31616/asj.2018.12.4.648

关键词

Bullet wound; Spinal injuries; Civilian; Soft tissue injuries; Spinal cord injuries

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Design: Retrospective, descriptive case series study. Purpose: To investigate the frequency, bone pattern, and associated lesions to the spine of gunshot wounds. Overview of Literature: Gunshot wounds are penetrating in nature and are caused by a bullet or projectile. These are becoming more common and are associated with significant sequelae, requiring long and costly multidisciplinary treatment. Associated spinal cord injuries (SCIs) in the civilian population represent 13%-17% of all spinal traumas. Spinal gunshot wounds are commonly thought to be stable; however, there is potential acute and chronic spinal instability if the bullet passes transversely, fracturing either both pedicles or both facet joints. Methods: We obtained data from the clinical files of patients with spinal gunshot wounds treated by spine surgeons. We performed a statistical analysis to obtain the pattern and frequency of the injuries. Results: We included 54 patients (48 men [89%] and six women [11%]). Eight patterns of spinal gunshot wounds were identified; 61% (33 patients) had complete SCI. The thoracic spine was most frequently affected, with 88% of patients having SCI; 75%, hemopneumothorax; 28%, pulmonary lesions; and 16%, hepatic lesions. The presence of pedicle fractures had an odds ratio of 3.64 for SCI. Conclusions: The two main bone patterns are the vertebral body and posterior arch with pedicle fractures as modifiers, given that they are at a high risk for SCI. The spinal pattern and associated lesions were related to the bullet's path, with the vertebral body having the highest frequency of associated lesions. Vertebral body burst fracture was the main indication for instrumentation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据