Dataset Information

Combined tracheostomy and thyroidectomy in a patient with cervical spine fracture.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Combined tracheostomy and thyroidectomy is usually done in case of removal of a large goiter causing damage to the tracheal wall. Thyroidectomy to get access to the trachea for surgical airway is a rare procedure. Tracheostomy following cervical spinal fracture is challenging as no hyperextension can be provided limiting exposure.

Case report

A 45-year-old intoxicated male with a head on bicycle accident suffered a C1 fracture and cervical spinal shock requiring emergent intubation. The C1 fracture was managed with a cervical collar. The patient improved neurologically on the ICU; however, he could not be weaned from mechanical ventilation thus requiring tracheostomy. On initial trauma CT-scan, a large goiter displacing the trachea to the left side was seen. He was kept in line stabilized using towels in the OR. A 5 cm transverse neck incision was made. The large partially retrosternal goiter reaching the aortic arch was stepwise mobilized out of the neck. The isthmus was divided; the enlarged right lobe was brought out of the neck and resected. The trachea was pulled to the midline, crosswise incised, the skin flaps were sutured down and a 7 Shiley cannula was inserted. A PEG tube was placed. The patient had a protracted course but ultimately was transferred alert and oriented to a long-term rehabilitation facility moving all extremities.

Conclusion

Combined thyroidectomy with tracheostomy in the setting of cervical fracture is technically challenging but was an essential step in the recovery of this patient.

SUBMITTER: Bonatti H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6543092 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThrough the follow-up analysis of cervical spine fracture cases with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), a treatment-oriented fracture classification method is introduced to evaluate the clinical efficacy guided by this classification method.MethodA retrospective analysis was performed on 128 AS patients who underwent comprehensive treatment in the Spine Surgery Department of Qingdao University Hospital from January 2009 to May 2018. Statistics of patient demographic data, distribution of different fractures corresponding to surgical methods, 3-year follow-up outcomes, and summary of objective fracture classification methods were analyzed. A prospective 5-year follow-up study of 90 patients with AS cervical spine fractures from June 2015 to August 2020 was also included. Statistical differences on the distribution of factors such as case information, cervical spine sagittal sequence parameters, and fracture classification were assessed. Correlations between surgical information, American Spinal Injuries Association grade (ASIA), modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores (mJOA), and other factors were analyzed to establish a nomogram predictive model for curative effect outcomes. Overall, three major types and the four subtypes of AS cervical spine fractures were evaluated based on the clinical efficacy of the classification and the selection of surgical treatment methods.ResultThe most common type of fracture was type II (30 cases, 33.33%), most of the subtypes were A (37 cases), followed by B (36 cases) and C (17 cases). Twenty-four of 28 patients with type I underwent anterior surgery, and 47 of 62 patients with type II and III underwent posterior surgery. The average follow-up time was 25.76 ± 11.80 months. The results of predicting clinical variables are different but include factors such as fracture type and subtype, type of operation, and age. The predictor variables include the above-mentioned similar variables, but survival is more affected by the fracture type of the patient.ConclusionThis predictive model based on follow-up information delineation points out the impact of ankylosing spondylitis cervical spine fracture classification on surgical selection and clinical efficacy.

Project description:BackgroundBicyclists are vulnerable road users. The aim of this paper was to describe all bicycle-related traumatic cervical spine injuries (CSIs) in the South-East region of Norway (2015-2019), and to investigate whether certain types of CSIs are typical for bicyclists.MethodsRetrospective cohort study of prospectively collected registry data of all CSIs in the South-East region of Norway (3.0 million inhabitants), from 2015 to 2019. Patient characteristics, injury types, and treatment were summarized with descriptive statistics. Bayesian multivariable logistic regression was used to identify potential factors associated with occipital condyle fractures (OC-Fx) or odontoid fractures (OFx).ResultsDuring the five-year study period, 2,162 patients with CSIs were registered, and 261 (12%) were bicycle-related. The incidence of bicycle-related CSIs was 1.7/100,000 person-years. The median age of the patients with bicycle-related CSIs was 55 (IQR: 22) years, 83% were male, 71% used a helmet, 16% were influenced by ethanol, 12% had a concomitant cervical spinal cord injury (SCI), and 64% sustained multiple traumas. The three most common bicycle-related CSIs were C6/C7 fracture (Fx) (28%), occipital condyle Fx (OC-Fx) (23%) and C5/C6 Fx (19%). Patients with bicycle-related CSIs compared to patients with non-bicycle related CSIs were younger, more often male, had fewer comorbidities, more likely multiple traumas, more often had OC-Fx, and less often sustained an odontoid fracture (OFx). Multivariable logistic regression of potential risk factors for OC-Fx demonstrated a significantly increased risk of OC-Fx for bicyclists compared to non-bicyclists (OR=2.8).The primary treatment for bicycle-related CSIs was external immobilization in 187/261 (71.6%) cases, open surgical fixation in 44/261 (16.8%), and no treatment in 30/261 (11.5%).ConclusionBicycle crashes are a frequent cause of CSIs in the Norwegian population and should be of concern to the public society. The three most common bicycle-related CSIs were C6/C7 fracture, occipital condyle fracture and C5/C6 fracture.

Project description:Study designGlobal cross-sectional survey.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to validate the AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification by examining the perceived injury severity by surgeon across AO geographical regions and practice experience.Summary of background dataPrevious subaxial cervical spine injury classifications have been limited by subpar interobserver reliability and clinical applicability. In an attempt to create a universally validated scheme with prognostic value, AO Spine established a subaxial cervical spine injury classification involving four elements: injury morphology, facet injury involvement, neurologic status, and case-specific modifiers.MethodsA survey was sent to 272 AO Spine members across all geographic regions and with a variety of practice experience. Respondents graded the severity of each variable of the classification system on a scale from zero (low severity) to 100 (high severity). Primary outcome was to assess differences in perceived injury severity for each injury type over geographic regions and level of practice experience.ResultsA total of 189 responses were received. Overall, the classification system exhibited a hierarchical progression in subtype injury severity scores. Only three subtypes showed a significant difference in injury severity score among geographic regions: F3 (floating lateral mass fracture, P = 0.04), N3 (incomplete spinal cord injury, P = 0.03), and M2 (critical disk herniation, P = 0.04). When stratified by surgeon experience, pairwise comparison showed only two morphological subtypes, B1 (bony posterior tension band injury, P = 0.02) and F2 (unstable facet fracture, P = 0.03), and one neurologic subtype (N3, P = 0.02) exhibited a significant difference in injury severity score.ConclusionThe AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System has shown to be reliable and suitable for proper patient management. The study shows this classification is substantially generalizable by geographic region and surgeon experience, and provides a consistent method of communication among physicians while covering the majority of subaxial cervical spine traumatic injuries.Level of Evidence: 4.