Abstract
Introduction
Posterior fracture-dislocation of fifth lumbar vertebra (L5) is a rare injury pattern. Existing Aihara classification system lacks its mention.
Case presentation
We report two cases of posterior fracture-dislocation of L5 with comminuted fracture of body that presented with cauda equina syndrome. The smaller anteroinferior vertebral body fragment of L5 had its relationship maintained with sacrum, whereas the larger posterosuperior fragment of the body was retropulsed. Decompression and instrumented fusion through posterior approach yielded good clinical outcome.
Discussion
We also present literature review with special emphasis on fracture characteristics and suggest its possible inclusion as a separate sub-type in existing Aihara classification.
Subject terms: Trauma, Spinal cord diseases
Introduction
Fracture-dislocation of fifth lumbar vertebra (L5) is a rare injury pattern and usually results from high-energy trauma. The direction of dislocation is mostly anterior. Posterior fracture-dislocation of L5 is exceedingly rare injury pattern [1–13] (Table 1). To the best of authors’ knowledge, atleast nine closed [2, 5, 7–13] and three open cases [3, 5, 6] of posterior fracture-dislocation of L5 have been reported in the literature. Majority of the reported cases had varying degrees of neurological deficits that improved after surgical decompression. We report two cases of traumatic posterior fracture-dislocation of L5 with comminuted fracture of its body. A review of literature is also presented with special emphasis on fracture morphology and possible mechanism of injury involved in the cases. We suggest that such cases may be considered under separate sub-type in existing Aihara type 5 [1].
Table 1.
Published cases of posterior fracture-dislocation of the fifth lumbar vertebra.
| S. | Authors (ref.) | Age/sex | Mechanism of injury | Open/closed | Clinical presentation | Injury pattern | Associated injury pattern | Treatment | Complications | Results and follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Griffin and Sutherland [6] | 21/M | Struck by shell fragments | Open | Complete paraplegia below L4 | Posterior fracture-dislocation of L5-S1 | Iliac crest fracture | Wound care by debridement | Infection | Fusion in situ/No recovery |
| 2 | Cohn et al. [3] | 17/M | Struck by oncoming train | Open | Complete paraplegia below L4 | Retrolisthesis of L5 over S1. Free flowing posterior elements of L5 in open wound | Open iliac wing fracture, ligamentous injury both knees | Delayed open reduction and internal fixation with pedicle screws and steffee plate | Infection that subsided with implant removal | Fusion of L5-S1/no recovery |
| 3 | Gertzbein [5] | 19/F | Motor vehicle accident as a passenger asleep wearing a lap-type seatbelt | Closed | Paraparesis, cauda equina syndrome | Posterior dislocation of L5 over S1. Intact facet joints. Extensive soft tissue disruption | Intra-abdominal injuries, left Lisfranc fracture-dislocation | Laparotomy, Reduction with pedicle screws fixation, interspinous wiring, facet screws placement, intertransverse fusion | None | Fusion L5-S1/partial neurological recovery |
| 4 | Naude et al. [8] | 15/M | Fall from the back of truck | Closed | Hypoesthesia in L5 and S1 dermatome on both sides along with no power in ankle and toe dorsiflexors and inverters | Comminuted posterior fracture-dislocation L5-S1 | Fractures of 3 ribs and left transverse process fracture of L4 | Open reduction decompression and fusion | None | No neurological improvement at 12 weeks |
| 5 | Finkelstein et al. [4] | 19/M | Hit by oncoming train | Open | Incomplete paraparesis distal to L2 on left side and L4 on right side | Posterior fracture-dislocation of L5 | Amputation of left index and ring fingers, fracture of distal radius right side, pneumothorax, multiple rib fractures, hemoperitoneum | Laparotomy and anterior I-plate and delayed posterior pedicle screws fixation with fusion | None | 18 months/solid fusion/partial neurological recovery |
| 6 | Steinitz et al. [9] | 36/F | Head-on collision with vehicle | Closed | Late presentation after 2 months, pseudomeningocele L3-S3, no neurological deficit | L5-S1 retrolisthesis 50%, bilateral facetal dislocation, L5 transverse processes fracture (Aihara type 2) | None | Open reduction internal fixation with pedicle screw, Repair of pseudomeningomyelocele, second stage anterior interbody fusion | None | Fusion at L5-S1/under-corrected deformity/neurologically intact |
| 7 | Mukundala and Lim [11] | 28/M | Hit by truck from behind | Closed | Complete paraplegia below L4 | Burst fracture of L5 with L5 dislocated posteriorly on S1 | 5 cm perianal laceration superficial to the anal sphincter, acute on chronic renal failure | Open reduction and posterior fusion with stabilization with a Hartshill rectangle | None | Neurological status did not improve and bladder and bowel functions were not restored |
| 8 | Aihara et al. [1] | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Dislocation of the body of L5 with fracture of the vertebral body, lamina and L4-L5 facets (Aihara type 5) | Not mentioned | Posterior decompression with posterolateral fusion with pedicle screws L3-S1, anterior interbody fusion L4-5 | Not mentioned | Anterior interbody fusion failed, pedicle screw breakage |
| 9 | Menighini and deWalt [7] | 15/F | Struck by a motor vehicle from behind and dragged | Closed | Severe paraparesis below L3 level | Posterior fracture-dislocation of L5-S1, fracture through anteroinferior corner of L5, sagittal fracture of posterior part of L5 body, bilateral fractures of pars interarticularis | Blunt trauma abdomen | Laparotomy, second stage posterior decompression and internal fixation with pedicle screws | Infection that subsided with implant removal | 5 years/fusion at L5-S1/partial neurological recovery |
| 10 | Cebesoy et al. [2] | 33/M | Hit on back by a stone block in mine explosion | Closed | Complete paraplegia | Retrolisthesis of L5 over S1 | None | Open reduction and internal fixation with pedicle screws | None | 16 years/fusion and degenerative changes/right foot-drop persisted |
| 11 | Verhlest et al. [10] | 6/F | Hit by tractor at the level of thorax and abdomen while sitting on chair against a wall | Closed | Complete paraplegia below L3 | L5-S1 posterior spondyloptosis, fracture of left sacrum, right pedicle S1, dislocation of left facet L5-S1 (Denis 3 column) (Aihara type 5 as per authors description) | Blunt trauma abdomen, Morel lavallee lesion of left hip and sacral area, sacral fracture, right transverse processes fracture of L2-4 and spinous process of L2-3 | Open reduction and internal fixation with pedicle screws | Infection | 1 year/no bony fusion through L5-S1/no recovery |
| 12 | Gabel et al. [12] | 27/M | High-speed motor vehicle accident | Closed | Complete paraplegia below L1 | Posterolateral retrolisthesis of L5 over S1 | Abdominal trauma | L2 to sacroiliac posterior instrumented fusion with L5 vertebrectomy and placement of an interbody cage | None | No neurological recovery |
| 13 | Macfarland et al. [13] | 30/M | Pathological fracture secondary to cold abscess by fall while lifting a heavy object around | Closed | Lower back pain, bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy | Three-column fracture-dislocation of L5 with grade 4 retrolisthesis with L5 burst fracture | None | Posterior L5 corpectomy with placement of expandable cage and pedicle screw placement from L3-S1/ilium | Extensive adhesions and poor dissection planes led to failed anterior approach | Ambulating well without difficulty |
Case presentation
Case 1: a 17-years-old girl fell from a height of ~25 feet and experienced severe pain in the lower back, weakness of both lower limbs, and inability to pass urine. She was referred to our institute after 17 days of sustaining the trauma. On examination, a step could be felt in the lower back as spinous process of L4 vertebra was prominent. Neurological examination is summarized in Table 2. We classified her as grade A as per ASIA impairment scale [14]. Radiographs revealed posterior fracture-dislocation of L5 with burst fracture of the body (Fig. 1A) and bilateral calcaneum fractures. Non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) of lumbosacral spine revealed posterior fracture-dislocation of L5 with comminuted fracture of its body (Fig. 1B). There was presence of bilateral facet joints dislocations; fractures of left pedicle; left lamina; and right pars interarticularis (Fig. 2A, B). The L4 body was intact and displaced posteriorly with respect to sacral vertebrae (Figs. 1A, B and 2C). MRI scan additionally revealed severe compression on the dural sac (Fig. 3A, B).
Table 2.
Description of cases reported in present study.
| Case no. | Age/sex/mechanism of Injury | Neurological examination | Imaging findings | Treatment and outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
17/F Fall from height (25 feet) |
Medical Research Council (MRC) grade 3 power in hip flexors, adductors and abductors whereas extensors had grade 2 power on both the sides. Bilateral knee flexors had grade 3, whereas extensors had grade 2 power. Bilateral ankle dorsiflexors had grade 2 power and plantar flexors had no movement. Great toe extension and flexion were absent on both the sides. She had complete sensory loss below L4 dermatome on both the sides. Bilateral knee and ankle jerks were absent. Plantars, bulbocavernous reflexes, perianal sensations and voluntary anal contractions were also absent. ASIA impairment scale: A |
Radiographs: posterior fracture-dislocation of L5 with burst fracture of the body NCCT: posterior fracture-dislocation of L5 with comminuted fracture of body. Bilateral facet joints dislocations and fractures of left pedicle and lamina and right pars interarticularis. The smaller anteroinferior vertebral body fragment of L5 had its relationship maintained with sacrum, whereas, the larger posterosuperior body fragment was comminuted, and retropulsed MRI: posterior fracture-dislocation of L5 with the burst fracture of the body. The retropulsed L5 vertebral body fragment was severely compressing the dural sac. There was associated prespinal, paraspinal, and ventral epidural collection indenting the thecal sac possibly representing fracture-hematoma or cerebrospinal fluid. |
Decompression and short segment pedicle screws fixation at L4 and S1 with titanium interbody cage filled with bone graft with posterolateral fusion. Patient was able to walk independently without pain at 5 years follow-up. Her neurological examination revealed grade 5 power in both hips and extensors of knees, grade 4 power in flexors of knee and dorsiflexors of ankle, grade 3 power in great toe dorsiflexors, grade 2 power in ankle and great toe plantar flexors. Sensations are intact up to L4 level and 30-40% sensory loss was present distally on both the sides. She had clinical bladder control though detailed urodynamic studies were not performed. ASIA impairment scale: C |
| 2 |
28/M Hit by three-wheeler from behind while riding scooter |
MRC grade 5 power in bilateral hip and knee. Left ankle dorsiflexion and plantarflexion had grade 4 power. Left great toe extension had grade 4 and flexion had grade 3 power. He had partial sensory in L5 and S1 dermatome on the left side. Left ankle jerk was absent. Bladder was paralyzed. Perianal sensations and voluntary anal contractions were also absent. ASIA impairment scale: A |
Radiographs: posterior fracture-dislocation of L5 with burst fracture of the body NCCT: comminuted fracture of L5 body with retropulsion of body fragment with L4 spinous process fracture. Facet joint dislocation was apparent on the right side. MRI: retropulsed L5 vertebral body fragment was severely compressing the dural sac and left L5 and S1 nerve roots. |
Decompression and short segment pedicle screws fixation at L4 and S2 sacral alar-iliac screws. At 2 years follow-up, he had functional recovery in ankle dorsiflexion and plantarflexion. He had partial sensory loss over L5 and S1 dermatome on the left side with pressure sore over lateral malleolus. He was able to pass urine without difficulty. ASIA impairment scale: D |
Fig. 1. Radiological features of 17-year-old girl who had a fall from a height (Case 1).
A Lateral view radiograph of lumbosacral spine showing posterior fracture-dislocation of L5; B NCCT mid-sagittal view showing comminuted fracture-dislocation of L5. The smaller anteroinferior L5 vertebral body fragment is maintaining the relationship with sacrum, whereas the larger comminuted posterosuperior L5 body fragment is seen retropulsed.
Fig. 2. Detailed NCCT findings of Case 1.
A NCCT axial view showing comminuted fracture of L5. Retropulsion of vertebral body fragments into the vertebral canal, fractures of left pedicle and spinous process are apparent. B Coronal section showing facetal dislocation. C Volume rendered image of lumbosacral spine and pelvis, as viewed from antero-lateral aspect from the right side, showing posterior fracture-dislocation of L5, right-sided facet joint dislocation, and fracture of right pars interarticularis.
Fig. 3. MRI findings of Case 1.
A T2-weighted mid-sagittal section showing posterior fracture-dislocation of L5 and resultant compression of dural sac by retropulsed fragments. B Axial section showing severe compression of neural elements with associated prespinal, paraspinal, and ventral epidural collection indenting the thecal sac (possibly representing fracture-hematoma or cerebrospinal fluid).
She underwent surgery via posterior midline approach. Identification of the different parts of posterior elements was difficult because of comminution. There was circumferential loss of dura at the level of L5 resulting in CSF leak. Cauda equina was found severely compressed due to the retropulsed L5 body fragment. The roots were found contused and tethered between the retropulsed L5 body fragment and the lamina of L4 superiorly and S1 inferiorly. S1 nerve root was found avulsed. Comminuted L5 vertebral body fragments were removed from either side of cauda equina and nerve roots. The screws could not be placed in L5 vertebra as posterosuperior body fragment was small and left pedicle was fractured. Anteroinferior part of L5 body, that was lying in alignment with S1, was left in situ. Intervening discs between L4-L5 and L5-S1 were found ruptured and, thus removed. Inferior end-plate of L4 vertebra and superior end-plate of S1 vertebra were prepared by removing disc cartilage. Short segment pedicle screw fixation was done at L4 and S1 vertebrae. Anterior reconstruction was performed with a titanium cage filled with autologous bone graft as (1) McCormack score [15] was 8; and (2) considerable amount of bone from L5 vertebral body had to be removed during decompression. Despite our best efforts, full correction of lordosis could not be achieved probably because of delayed presentation. Supplemental posterolateral fusion was also performed.
Postoperative period was uneventful. She showed minor neurological improvement in the form of flickering of right great toe at 2 weeks. She was mobilized out of the bed on wheelchair with a modified brace (lumbosacral corset incorporated in Taylor’s brace). She was able to walk with the help of a quadruped walker at 6 months follow-up. At 5 years, she was able to walk independently without pain and had regained clinical bladder control (ASIA impairment scale: C). Detailed neurological status is shown in Table 2. Radiographs showed well-seated implants though inadequate lordotic correction was apparent. The cage was close to spinal canal proximally and one of the sacral pedicle screws was longer (Fig. 4A). NCCT revealed anterior fusion mass between L4 and S1 (Fig. 4B).
Fig. 4. Follow-up imaging of Case 1 at 5 years.
A Follow-up lateral view radiograph at 5 years showing fixation construct and interbody cage L4-S1. Though the upper-posterior margin of the cage is closer to the posterior aspect of L4 vertebral body and one of the sacral pedicle screws was longer, the implant construct maintained its original placement. B Follow-up midsagittal view of NCCT showing evidence of anterior fusion mass at 5 years.
Case 2: a 28-year-old gentleman was hit by a three-wheeler from behind as he was riding scooter. He presented to our institute the next day with low back pain, weakness in left foot, and difficulty in passing urine. Tenderness was present at L4-L5 level. Detailed neurological examination is given in Table 2. We classified him as grade A as per ASIA impairment scale [14]. Radiograph showed posterior fracture-dislocation of L5 with burst fracture (Fig. 5A). NCCT revealed the details of injury patterns (Fig. 5B–D) as “empty facet sign” suggestive of its dislocation was apparent on the right side (Fig. 5C). MRI scan showed compression on the dural sac, and dislocated right facet joint (Fig. 6A, B). He underwent surgery under general anesthesia in prone position via posterior midline approach. Intraoperatively, we had a breach of S1 pedicle screw on the right side, so we put S2 sacral alar-iliac screws. We did short segment fixation between L4 and S2 without anterior reconstruction because (1) adequate lordotic correction could be achieved without much bone resection; and (2) McCormack score [15] was 6 (Fig. 7A, B). Postoperative period was uneventful. At 2 years of follow-up, he had functional recovery in ankle dorsiflexion and plantarflexion. He had partial sensory loss over L5 and S1 dermatome on the left side with pressure sore over lateral malleolus (Table 2) (ASIA impairment scale: D).
Fig. 5. Radiological features of 28-year-old man who had a road-side vehicular accident (Case 2).
A Lateral view radiograph of the lumbosacral spine showing posterior fracture-dislocation of L5. B NCCT mid-sagittal view showing comminuted fracturedislocation of L5. The smaller anteroinferior L5 vertebral body fragment is maintaining the relationship with sacrum, whereas the larger comminuted posterosuperior L5 body fragment is seen retropulsed. C Axial view showing “empty facet sign” on the right side suggestive of facetal dislocation (blue arrow). Retropulsion of vertebral body fragments into the vertebral canal, fractures of left pedicle, and spinous process are apparent. D Coronal view showing rotatory dislocation of L5 as facet joint is not seen on the right side.
Fig. 6. MRI findings of Case 2.
A T2-weighted MRI mid-sagittal view showing posterior fracture-dislocation of L5. Retropulsed L5 vertebral body fragments are seen compressing the dural sac. B Axial view showing compression of neural elements on right side. Additionally, “empty facet sign” on the right side suggestive of facetal dislocation.
Fig. 7. Follow-up imaging of Case 2 at 2 years.
A 2 years follow-up anteroposterior view, and B lateral view radiograph showing well placed and maintained L4 pedicle screws and S2 sacral alar-iliac screws.
A written informed consent was obtained from both the patients/parents authorizing the treatment, photographic documentation, and radiographic examination. They were also informed that data concerning the case may be submitted for publication and they agreed.
Discussion
Regarding mechanism of injury
Fracture-dislocations of L5 vertebra usually result from high-energy trauma and represent unstable spinal injury. Majority of the reported cases had severe neurological deficit at the time of presentation [2–8, 10–12]. Such unstable injuries may require combined anterior and posterior stabilization [1, 3, 4, 9, 12, 13]. Flexion-distraction as well as hyperextension and shear have been postulated to cause these injuries [7, 9, 16]. These mechanisms have been suggested on the basis of case reports alone owing to the rarity of the entity and a consensus in the literature is lacking in relation to the mechanism of injury [7]. Though Steinitz et al. considered this injury to have flexion-distraction mechanism [9], hyperextension of the spine as the mode of injury is more widely accepted [7, 15]. Denis and Burkus [16] reported 12 cases of thoracic and lumbar spine fracture-dislocations following forceful hyperextension injury to the spine (lumberjack paraplegia). They found disruption of the anterior longitudinal ligament and anterior annulus. They suggested that the associated frequent fractures of posterior elements were secondary to compression element of the hyperextension injury. We suggest hyperextension and axial compression injury to the spine as the possible mechanism of injury in our patients. Torso would have exposed to axial compression first due to sudden deceleration following the fall. Continued force would have concurrently produced hyperextension and shear forces in addition to the axial compression. Thus, it seems that the axial compression in hyperextension position could have produced this injury pattern.
Regarding the possibility of placing these injuries in a separate sub-type
Aihara et al. [1] presented seven cases of fracture-dislocation of L5 and reviewed 50 other such cases from the existing literature and classified the fracture-dislocation of L5 into five types: Type 1 (unilateral lumbosacral facet dislocation with/without facet fracture and intact contralateral facet); Type 2 (bilateral lumbosacral facet dislocation with/without facet fracture); Type 3 (unilateral lumbosacral facet dislocation and contralateral lumbosacral facet fracture); Type 4 (dislocation of the body of L5 with bilateral fracture of the pars interarticularis-acute spondylotic spondylolisthesis); Type 5 (dislocation of the body of L5 with fracture of the body and/or pedicle with/without injury of the lamina and/or facet).
Posterior fracture-dislocations were not classified separately but placed in the system depending upon the geometry of injury pattern, even though the mechanism of injury is essentially different. They did mention that 4 out of total 57 cases had posterior fracture-dislocations, only one of these cases had belonged to their series that was described in their study with partial details. Since both the cases in our report had fracture of L5 vertebral body in addition to facetal fracture/dislocation, we suggest inclusion of these cases as a separate sub-type in Aihara type 5. A literature review detailing 13 published cases of posterior fracture-dislocation of L5 is presented (Table 1). Out of these, at least three were open fracture-dislocation [3, 4, 6] and one of these was managed with wound care alone [6].
Ver et al. [17] has described a new classification for traumatic lumbar spondylolisthesis which included complex fracture-dislocation of L5 vertebrae as Type 6. They recommended posterior instrumentation and fusion involving additional levels superiorly or inferiorly with possible anterior interbody fusion. Type 6 lesions had more severe neurological deficit with lower fusion rates suggesting poorer prognosis.
Cebesoy et al. [2] presented a similar case of retrolisthesis of L5 over S1. They followed the case for 16 years after the surgical decompression and fusion and suggested that cauda equina has a good healing potential even after such devastating injuries. As reported in other cases, 5 cases out of total 8 showed neurological improvement after surgical decompression [2, 4, 5, 7, 13]. The clinical results of our cases seem to be in tune with these published cases.
Conclusion
Posterior fracture-dislocation of L5 needs to be identified as a separate sub-type in existing Aihara classification. These injuries usually have higher chances of associated injuries and neurological deficit. Spinal decompression may result in neurological improvement.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Aihara T, Takahashi K, Yamagata M, Moriya H. Fracture-dislocation of fifth lumbar vertebra: a new classification. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 1998;80:840–5. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.80B5.0800840. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Cebesoy O, Kose KC, Yazar T. The healing potential in cauda equina syndrome secondary to traumatic posterior L5-S1 dislocation: a case report with 16 years follow-up. Acta Orthop Belg. 2007;73:408–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Cohn SL, Keppler L, Akbarnia BA. Traumatic retrolisthesis of the lumbosacral junction. A case report. Spine (Philos Pa 1976) 1989;14:132–4. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198901000-00031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Finkelstein JA, Hu RW, al Harby T. Open posterior dislocation of lumbosacral junction. A case report. Spine (Philos Pa 1976) 1996;21:378–80. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199602010-00025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Gertzbein SD. Posterior dislocation of the lumbosacral joint: a case report. J Spinal Disord. 1990;3:174–8. doi: 10.1097/00002517-199006000-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Griffin JB, Sutherland GH. Traumatic posterior fracture-dislocation of the lumbosacral joint. J Trauma. 1980;20:426–8. doi: 10.1097/00005373-198020050-00015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Menghini RM, deWalt CJ. Traumatic posterior spondyloptosis at lumbosacral junction. A case report. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2003;85:346–50. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200302000-00026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Naude RJ, Govender S, Preston MH. Fracture dislocation of the lumbosacral spine [letter] S Afr Med J. 1992;82:486–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Steinitz DK, Alexander DI, Leighton RK, O’Sullivan JJ. Late displacement of a fracture dislocation at lumbosacral junction. A case study. Spine (Philos Pa 1976) 1997;22:1024–7. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199705010-00016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Verhelst L, Ackerman P, Van Meirhaeghe J. Traumatic posterior lumbosacral spondyloptosis in a six-year-old: a case report and review of the literature. Spine (Philos Pa 1976) 2009;34:E629–34. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181aa2e1a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Mukundala VV, Lim HH. Traumatic posterior rotatory fracture-dislocation of lumbo-sacral spine. Singap Med J. 2001;42:82–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Gabel BC, Curtis E, Gonda D, Ciacci J. Traumatic L5 posterolateral spondyloptosis: a case report and review of the literature. Cureus. 2015;7:e277.. doi: 10.7759/cureus.277. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.McFarland III JR, Branch D, Gonzalez A, Campbell G, Lall RR. L5 fracture dislocation secondary to cold abscess treated by posterior corpectomy with expandable cage placement. Cureus. 2020;12:e8756. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 14.Kirshblum SC, Burns SP, Biering-Sorensen F, Donovan W, Graves DE, Jha A, et al. International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury (revised 2011) J Spinal Cord Med. 2011;34:535–46. doi: 10.1179/204577211X13207446293695. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.McCormack T, Karaikovic E, Gaines RW. The load sharing classification of spine fractures. Spine (Philos Pa 1976) 1994;19:1741–4. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199408000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Denis F, Burkus JK. Shear fracture-dislocations of the thoracic and lumbar spine associated with forceful hyperextension (lumberjack paraplegia) Spine (Philos Pa 1976) 1992;17:156–61. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199202000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Ver ML, Dimar JR, Carreon LY. Traumatic lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and case series. Glob Spine J. 2019;9:767–82. doi: 10.1177/2192568218801882. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]