Advertisement

Archives of orthopaedic and traumatic surgery

, Volume 105, Issue 4, pp 243–246 | Cite as

A consecutive series of 64 halo-vest-treated cervical spine injuries

  • H. Ersmark
  • R. Kalén
Clinical and Experimental Forum

Summary

A consecutive series of 64 halo-vest-treated unstable cervical spine injuries is described. We agree with earlier investigators on the advantages of halo-vest treatment. For several types of injuries affecting the cervical spine we prefer the halo-vest method, which has a low rate of technical failures and complications. The healing rate was found to be high. Hospitalization was very short with the halo-vest method.

Keywords

Public Health Cervical Spine Healing Rate Spine Injury Consecutive Series 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Zusammenfassung

Eine konsekutive Serie von 64 unstabilen Halswirbelfrakturen, die mit einer Haloweste behandelt wurden, wird beschrieben. Wir haben die gleiche Ansicht wie frühere Untersucher, betreffend der Vorteile mit der Halowestenbehandlung. Für die meisten Halswirbelfrakturen bevorzugten wird die Behandlung mit der Haloweste, die eine niedrige Rate von technischen Problemen und Komplikationen aufweist. Die Heilungsfrequenz war hoch. Die Halowestenmethode verkürzte die Behandlungszeit in der Klinik.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amyes EW, Andersson FM (1956) Fracture of the odontoid process. Arch Surg 72:377–393Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cooper PR, Maravilla KR, Sklar FH, Moody FF, Clark WK (1979) Halo immobilization of cervical spine fractures. J Neurosurg 50:603–610Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Crutchfield WG (1933) Skeletal traction for dislocation of the cervical spine. South Surg 2:156–159Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Crutchfield WG (1945) Skeletal traction in treatment of injuries to the cervical spine. JAMA 155:29–32Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hörlyck E, Rahbeck M (1974) Cervical spine injuries. Acta Orthop Scand 45:845–853Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnson RM, Hart DL, Simmons EF, Ramsby GR (1977) Cervical orthoses. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 59:332–339Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nachemsson A (1960) Fracture of the odontoid process of the axis. Acta Orthop Scand 29:185–217Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nickel VL, Perry J, Garret A, Heppenstall M (1968) The halo. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 50:1400–1409Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paradis GR, Janes JM (1973) Post-traumatic atlantoaxial instability; the fate of the odontoid process fracture in 46 cases. J Trauma 13:359–367Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Roberts A, Wickstrom J (1973) Prognosis of odontoid fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 44:21–30Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Seljeskog EL (1978) Non-operative management of acute upper cervical injuries. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 41:87–100Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thompson H (1962) The “halo” traction apparatus. A method of external splinting of the cervical spine after injury. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 44:655–661Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Ersmark
    • 1
  • R. Kalén
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryDanderyd University HospitalDanderydSweden

Personalised recommendations