Comparison of anterior and posterior approaches for treatment of traumatic cervical dislocation combined with spinal cord injury: Minimum 10-year follow-up

Anterior reduction and interbody fusion fixation has not been compared directly with posterior reduction and short-segmental pedicle screw fixation for lower cervical dislocation, and so consensus is lacking as to which is the optimal method. The purpose of this paper is to compare long-term outcomes of the anterior versus posterior approach for traumatic cervical dislocation with spinal cord injury. One hundred and fifty-nine patients could be followed for more than 10 years (follow-up rate 84.1%). Ninety-two patients underwent anterior reduction and interbody fusion and fixation, and 67 patients underwent posterior reduction and short-segmental pedicle screw fixation. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the American Spinal Injury Association grading (ASIA), Odom’s criteria, cervical kyphosis, operative parameters, and surgical or post-operative complications were evaluated. Patients were followed for 10 to 17 years. There was no significant difference in main JOA scores, NDI scores or ASIA scores between the two groups at follow-up. The posterior approach was associated with greater loss of alignment by two years (P = 0.012) and at final follow-up (P < 0.001). The posterior approach group had more blood loss (P < 0.001), longer operation times (P < 0.001), longer hospital stays (P < 0.001) and fewer complications than the anterior approach group. The anterior approach is better than the posterior approach for preserving cervical lordosis, which is associated with a better long-term effect.