Person:
Yurac, Ratko

Profile Picture

Email Address

Birth Date

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Job Title

Last Name

Yurac

First Name

Ratko

Name

Filters

2022 - 20243
Reset filters

Settings

¿Qué estás buscando?



Subject: Trauma ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Variations in management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures as designated by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System
    (2022) Sheen Kweh, Barry Ting; Wee Tee, Jin; Muijs, Sander; Oner, Cumhur; Schnake, Klaus John; Benneker, Lorin Michael; Neves Vialle, Emiliano; Kanziora, Frank; Rajasekaran, Shanmuganathan; Schroeder, Gregory; Vaccaro, Alexander R.; AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System Validation Group; Grin, Andrey; Abdelgawaad, Ahmed Shawky; Zubairi, Akbar Jaleel; Castillo, Alejandro; Vernengo Lezica, Alejo; Ramieri, Alessandro; Guiroy, Alfredo; Grundshtein, Alon; Godinho Jr., Amauri; Henine, Amin; Pershin, Andrei A.; Athanasiou, Alkinoos; Zarate-Kalfopulos, Baron; Benzarti, Sofien; Bernucci, Claudio; Rebholz, Brandon J.; Direito-Santos, Bruno; Lourenço Costa, Bruno; Saciloto, Bruno; Majer, Catalin; Tannoury, Chadi; Cheng, Cristina; Yin Cheung, Jason Pui; Konrads, Christian; Jetjumnong, Chumpon; Chung, Chun Kee; Popescu, Eugen Cezar; Kilinçer, Cumhur; Yurac, Ratko
    OBJECTIVE Optimal management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures, as defined by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System, remains controversial. The objectives of this study were to determine whether significant management variations exist with respect to 1) fracture location across the upper, middle, and lower subaxial cervical spine and 2) geographic region, experience, or specialty. METHODS A survey was internationally distributed to 272 AO Spine members across six geographic regions (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East). Participants’ management of A3 and A4 subaxial cervical fractures across cervical regions was assessed in four clinical scenarios. Key characteristics considered in the vignettes included degree of neurological deficit, pain severity, cervical spine stability, presence of comorbidities, and fitness for surgery. Respondents were also directly asked about their preferences for operative management and misalignment acceptance across the subaxial cervical spine. RESULTS In total, 155 (57.0%) participants completed the survey. Pooled analysis demonstrated that surgeons were more likely to offer operative intervention for both A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures located at the cervicothoracic junction compared with fractures at the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. There were no significant variations in management for junctional incomplete (p = 0.116) or complete (p = 0.342) burst fractures between geographic regions. Surgeons with more than 10 years of experience were more likely to operatively manage A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their younger counterparts. Neurosurgeons were more likely to offer surgical stabilization of A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their orthopedic colleagues. Clinicians from both specialties agreed regarding their preference for fixation of lower junctional A3 (p = 0.866) and A4 (p = 0.368) fractures. Overall, surgical fixation was recommended more often for A4 than A3 fractures in all four scenarios (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The subaxial cervical spine should not be considered a single unified entity. Both A3 and A4 fracture subtypes were more likely to be surgically managed at the cervicothoracic junction than the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. The authors also determined that treatment strategies for A3 and A4 subaxial cervical spine fractures varied significantly, with the latter demonstrating a greater likelihood of operative management. These findings should be reflected in future subaxial cervical spine trauma algorithms.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Treatment of unilateral cervical facet fractures without evidence of dislocation or subluxation: a narrative review and proposed treatment algorithm
    (2024) Cirillo, Juan; Ricciardi, Guillermo; Alvarez, Facundo; Guiroy, Alfredo; Yurac, Ratko; Schnake, Klaus
    Isolated cervical spine facet fractures are often overlooked. The primary imaging modality for diagnosing these injuries is a computed tomography scan. Treatment of unilateral cervical facet fractures without evidence of dislocation or subluxation remains controversial. The available evidence regarding treatment options for these fractures is of low quality. Risk factors associated with the failure of nonoperative treatment are: comminution of the articular mass or facet joint, acute radiculopathy, high body mass index, listhesis exceeding 2 mm, fragmental diastasis, acute disc injury, and bilateral fractures or fractures that adversely affect 40% of the intact lateral mass height or have an absolute height of 1 cm.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Risk Factors for Failure of Non-operative Management in Isolated Unilateral Non-displaced Facet Fractures of the Subaxial Cervical Spine: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    (2024) Cirillo, Ignacio; Ricciardi, Alejandro; Cabrera, Juan Pablo; López Muñoz, Felipe; Romero Vlverde, Lyanne; Joaquim, Andrei; Carazzo, Charles; Yurac, Ratko
    Study Design: systematic review.Objective: To evaluate risk factors associated with failure of non-operative management of isolated unilateral facet fractures ofthe subaxial cervical spine in neurologically intact patients.Methods: A systematic review of the PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted in order todetermine risk factors associated with failure of non-operative management in isolated unilateral facet fractures of the subaxialcervical spine without facet and/or vertebral displacement, in neurologically intact patients. Our research was in line with thePRISMA Statement and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023405699).Results: A total of 1639 studies were identified through a database search on May 5, 2023. In total, 7 studies from the databaseswere included, along with 1 study found through a manual citation search. The evidence showed high clinical heterogeneity, aserious risk of bias according to the ROBINS-I tool, and a predominance of retrospective cohort studies. In comparison to lesscomplex facet fractures, lateral floating mass fractures were found to have 5.41 times higher odds of failure of non-operativemanagement (OR = 5.41; 95% CI = 1.32, 22.19). We calculated the potential association between lower absolute fracture heightand non-operative treatment success [Fracture height (percentage) Mean Difference = 17.51 ( 28.22, 6.79 95% CI); Absolute height Mean Difference: 0.46 ( 0.60, 0.31 95% CI)]. Other risk factors were not included in the meta-analysis dueto lack of data. The level of certainty was rated as “very low”.Conclusions: Lateral floating mass cervical facet fractures and larger fracture fragment size (measured either in absolute termsor as a percentage) are significant risk factors for failure of non-operative treatment.

Implementado por OpenGeek Services