Epidemiological comparison of adult cervical fractures from 2010 to 2011 between the northwest and northeast China
Li Shilun, Li Jia, Yu Yiyang, Chen Xiao, Dong Tianhua, Liu Bo, Yang Guang, Zhang Fei, Zhang Yingze.
Key Laboratory of Orthopaedic Biomechanics of Hebei Province, the Third Affiliated Hospital to Hebei Medical University, Orthopaedic Research Institution of Hebei Province, Shijiazhuang 050051, China
Abstract：Objective To compare the epidemiological features of adult cervical fractures between the northwest and northeast China.Methods The data of adult cervical fractures treated from January 2010 to December 2011 in 14 hospitals in the northwest and northeast China were collected through the PACs system and case reports checking system, excluding pathological fractures, old fractures and re-fractures. The data from the 10 hospitals in the northwest China were assigned into the northwest group and the data from the 4 hospitals in the northeast China into the northeast group. The analytic items included gender, age, age distribution and type of AO classification.Results A total of 771 cases were included. There were 509 cases in the northwest group, including 296 males (58.15%) and 213 females (41.85%), and 262 cases in the northeast group, including 151 males (57.63%) and 111 females (42.37%), showing no significant difference in gender ratio (χ2=0.019, P>0.05). The median ages of the northwest and northeast groups were 48 years (QR=20) and 57 years (QR=21), respectively, showing a significant difference (Z=6.405, P<0.05). The peak age ranged from 41 to 50 years (26.52%, 135/509) in the northwest group and from 51 to 60 years in the northeast group (21.76%, 57/262). The proportions of young and middle-aged (from 16 to 60 years old) and elderly (>60 years old) adults were respectively 407 (79.96%) and 102 (20.04%) in the northwest group, and 155 (59.16%) and 107 (40.84%) in the northeast group, showing significant differences (χ2=37.873, P<0.05). In both groups, the high-risk type of fracture in the 51.01 segment was type 51.01A. There were 20 cases in the northwest group(57.14%, 20/35) and 13 cases in the northeast group (46.43%, 13/28), with no significant difference (χ2=2.966, P>0.05). The high-risk type of fracture in the 51.02 segment was type 51.02B in both groups. There were 222 cases in the northwest group (92.50%, 222/240) and 71 cases in the northeast group (75.53%, 71/94), with a significant difference (χ2=28.989, P<0.05). The most common inferior cervical fractures were type 51.03 to 51.07A, with 187 cases (79.91%, 187/234) in the northwest group and 80 cases in the northeast group (57.14%, 80/140), showing a significant difference in constituent ratio of fracture type (χ2=39.919, P<0.05).Conclusions In both northwest and northeast China, the proportion of adult cervical fractures in males was larger than that in females. The peak age was from 41 to 50 years old in the northwest China and from 51 to 60 years old in the northeast China. The high-risk fracture types were type A in the 51.01 segment, type B in the 51.02 segment, and type 51.03 to 51.07A in the inferior cervical vertebrae.
李石伦, 李佳, 于沂阳, 陈霄, 董天华, 刘勃, 杨光, 张飞, 张英泽. 中国西北与东北地区2010—2011年成人颈椎骨折的流行病学对比分析[J]. 中华解剖与临床杂志, 2017, 22(2): 127-132.
Li Shilun, Li Jia, Yu Yiyang, Chen Xiao, Dong Tianhua, Liu Bo, Yang Guang, Zhang Fei, Zhang Yingze.. Epidemiological comparison of adult cervical fractures from 2010 to 2011 between the northwest and northeast China. Chinese Journal of Anatomy and Clinics, 2017, 22(2): 127-132.
Leucht P, Fischer K, Muhr G, et al. Epidemiology of traumatic spine fractures[J]. Injury, 2009, 40(2): 166-172. DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2008.06.040
[5]
Gerdhem P. Osteoporosis and fragility fractures: vertebral fractures[J]. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol, 2013, 27(6): 743-755. DOI:10.1016/j.berh.2014.01.002
[6]
张英泽. 临床创伤骨科流行病学[M].北京:人民卫生出版社, 2009: 283-302
[7]
Court-Brown CM, Caesar B. Epidemiology of adult fractures: a review[J]. Injury, 2006, 37(8): 691-697. DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2006.04.130
[8]
Schoenfeld AJ, Sielski B, Rivera KP, et al. Epidemiology of cervical spine fractures in the US military[J]. Spine J, 2012, 12(9): 777-783. DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2011.01.029
[9]
Sekhon LH, Fehlings MG. Epidemiology, demographics, and pathophysiology of acute spinal cord injury[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2001, 26(24 Suppl): S2-S12
[10]
Mead LB 2nd, Millhouse PW, Krystal J, et al. C1 fractures: a review of diagnoses, management options, and outcomes[J]. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med, 2016, 9(3): 255-262. DOI:10.1007/s12178-016-9356-5
[11]
Rossignol S, Schwab M, Schwartz M, et al. Spinal cord injury: time to move?[J]. J Neurosci, 2007, 27(44): 11782-11792. DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3444-07.2007
[12]
Courtine G, van den Brand R, Musienko P. Spinal cord injury: time to move[J]. Lancet, 2011, 377(9781):1896-1898. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60711-3
Fred? HL, Rizvi SA, Lied B, et al. The epidemiology of traumatic cervical spine fractures: a prospective population study from Norway[J]. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med, 2012, 20: 85. DOI:10.1186/1757-7241-20-85
[15]
Ryan MD, Henderson JJ. The epidemiology of fractures and fracture-dislocations of the cervical spine[J]. Injury, 1992, 23(1): 38-40
2017, Vol. 22 
