JE Vásquez et al.
Abstract
Fractures of the Odontoid are the most common type of C2 fractures and do not have a consensus treatment, because of that we performed a retrospective study which compares the anterior and posterior approach in the Odontoid Process fracture including: type of fracture, neurological involvement, surgical technique, postoperative management and early follow up of the patients. The data was obtained of the Neurosurgical Department of the Rancagua Regional Hospital database and includes ninety seven patients with dens fracture between June 1998 and August 2009. According to the Anderson and D' Alonzo classification, sixty one of the ninety seven patients had a type II fracture (62,8%), thirthy two (32,9%) a type I and four (4,1%) patients had a combination of a type II fracture plus a fracture of the Atlas. An anterior surgical approach with a cannulated screw was performed for the resolution of the type II fracture, posterior C1-2 transarticular screw fixation with supplemental tension-band fixation was used for the combination of fractures and a conservative management for the rest of them. Only 6% from the total was neurologically impaired before the surgery. The postoperative management consisted in the use of a cervical brase for at least 6 weeks in all cases. Is very important to make an accurate classification of the fracture because in a mayor percentage will decide whether a surgical resolution is needed and which approach is suitable for every case.
Key Words: Odontoid Process, Atlas, Anderson and D' Alonzo classification, canulated screw, cervical brase
Well done Juan Enrique!!. We´ll discuss your abstract and edited version of your introduction on Friday.
ResponderEliminarSee you then,
Claudia
Juan Enriquez:
ResponderEliminarI think you shuold include a short introduction, so that we can understand better the problem.
You could write a little shorter this: "Sixty one of the ninety seven patients had a type II fracture according to the Anderson and D' Alonzo classification (62,8%), thirthy two (32,9%) a type I and four (4,1%) patients had a combination of a type II fracture plus a fracture of the Atlas"
Writing it this way: "According to the Anderson and D'Alonzo classification, the prevalence of type I, II or a combination of both, was 62.8%, 32.9% and 4.1%, respectively.
Finaly, I have to recognize that I did not understand very well your research question, so I do not understand what is the main result and conclusion of it.
Rodrigo
Hi Juan Enrique,
ResponderEliminarI hope the comment made by Rodrigo helped you reshape your ideas. Here go some more suggestions to improve your abstract:
1. Change AND by BUT do not have ...
2. Change because of that by Therefore....
3. Early patient follow up
4. Data were obtained from the
5. and they include (the data).
6. Follow Rodrigo¨s suggestion to improve the next paragraph.
7. The methods section starting with the sentence "An anterior etc " is too long. Split this into two sentences or three if necessary.
8. Only 6% of the total what? Unclear.
9. What is the subject of the sentence: is very important?
10. Major?
11. Improve the last paragraph. It is unclear what the findings suggest in your study.
Hope these suggestions help.
See you on Friday,
Claudia