Cited by 4Spinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyTrauma and Emergency Care Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 3 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Konservative Therapie von Verletzungen der Halswirbelsäule

Open access
Badke, Andreas·2018·OP-Journal

Abstract

Zusammenfassung Der Erfolg einer konservativen Therapie bei Verletzungen der Halswirbelsäule hängt entscheidend davon ab, dass die Verletzung korrekt diagnostiziert und klassifiziert wird. Die Stabilität muss bildgebend dokumentiert werden. Im Verlauf der Behandlung sind in Abhängigkeit vom Verletzungstyp regelmäßige klinische und ggf. auch radiologische Kontrollen notwendig. Wenn eine begleitende Physiotherapie verordnet wird, sollten die Inhalte dieser Therapie eindeutig festgelegt werden.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This German-language review outlines conservative management of cervical spine injuries, from early functional therapy and cervical orthoses to halo fixation. It emphasizes stability assessment, classification-based indications, and close clinical/radiologic follow-up, while noting that evidence for specific orthoses and immobilization duration is lacking.

Key findings

  • Conservative options include early functional treatment, temporary immobilization in orthoses of varying stiffness, and halo fixation; halo provides the strongest immobilization especially for the upper cervical spine but is the most invasive and has become a rare exception for fractures. No evidence supports the indication of individual orthoses or the duration of immobilization.
  • Atlas fractures account for about 10–13% of cervical spine injuries. Gehweiler types I, II, IV, and V can be treated conservatively with 6–12 weeks of immobilization; types I and II are stable arch fractures and a soft collar for 6 weeks may suffice. Gehweiler III depends on transverse ligament integrity; IIIb may be unstable and require consideration of operative stabilization.
  • Axis fractures: Josten type I (isthmus displacement ≤2 mm, no relevant disco-ligamentous injury) is stable and usually treated with a semi-rigid collar for 6 weeks; Josten type II (>2 mm dehiscence, kyphotic deformity, intact anterior longitudinal ligament) may optionally be treated in a hyperextension orthosis for 6–12 weeks; types III and IV are unstable and operative. Dens type 1 is usually treated with a collar for 6–12 weeks; types 2 and 3 are controversial, especially in the elderly; stability should be confirmed by fluoroscopy; operative mortality rises notably in patients >80 years, so individual risk assessment is needed.
  • Subaxial AO classification: only type A injuries are suitable for conservative care. A0 and A1 can be treated early functionally or with brief immobilization; A2 is usually conservative; A3 carries risk of secondary neurologic deficit and higher kyphosis risk, and destruction of >50% of the vertebral body usually makes conservative treatment not goal-directed; A4, B, and C are not conservatively treatable. Whiplash/QTF: no immobilization is required, NSAIDs or peripheral analgesics are used, no evidence supports muscle relaxants, early MRI is advised for persistent symptoms, and coordinated physiotherapy is important.

Methods

  • Narrative review/educational article; no primary study design, sample, or statistical analysis is reported.
  • Synthesizes existing classifications (Gehweiler, Effendi/Josten, Anderson, AO Spine, QTF) and cited literature to describe conservative treatment options by cervical region and injury type.
  • Recommendations are based on the cited literature and clinical practice; no systematic search or evidence grading is described.

Limitations

  • The paper does not include a formal limitations section. It explicitly notes no evidence for the indication of individual orthoses and no evidence for immobilization duration; it also notes that exact data on secondary neurologic deficits in A3 fractures are lacking.
  • Evident from the text: as a narrative review, it lacks systematic methodology, quantitative synthesis, and formal strength-of-evidence assessment; many recommendations appear expert-opinion based.
  • The article states no conflict of interest. No patient sample or outcome data are presented, so effectiveness comparisons cannot be drawn from this paper alone.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1055/s-0044-100501

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

17 Own interpretation · 2 Not checked yet

Verify all 3 references — free account

Show all 11 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 6
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 2
8 of 8
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is no evidence for the indication for individual orthosis types for the respective injuries.

    “Es existiert jedoch keine Evidenz für die Indikation für die einzelnen Orthesenformen für die jeweiligen Verletzungen.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is no evidence for the duration of immobilization in conservative therapy of cervical spine injuries.

    “Es existiert keine Evidenz für die Dauer der Ruhigstellung bei konservativer Therapie von Verletzungen der Halswirbelsäule.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The halo fixator provides the best immobilization, especially of the upper cervical spine.

    “Der Halofixateur bietet die beste Ruhigstellung, insbesondere der oberen Halswirbelsäule, stellt jedoch auch die invasivste Form der konservativen Therapie dar.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Prolonged immobilization of the cervical spine in a halo fixator for conservative treatment of a cervical spine fracture has become a rare exception indication, especially for upper cervical spine injuries, due to the development of modern surgical methods.

    “Eine mehrwöchige Ruhigstellung der HWS im Halofixateur zur konservativen Therapie einer Fraktur der HWS ist infolge der Entwicklung der modernen Operationsmethoden insbesondere für die Verletzungen der oberen HWS zur seltenen Ausnahmeindikation geworden.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In Josten type II injuries, the anterior longitudinal ligament remains intact.

    “Bei dieser Verletzung bleibt das vordere Längsband intakt.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In patients over 80 years, the mortality of surgical treatment of dens fractures increases significantly.

    “Insbesondere bei Patienten > 80 Jahre steigt die Mortalität der operativen Versorgung jedoch deutlich an.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is no evidence for the administration of muscle relaxants in whiplash injury.

    “Es besteht keine Evidenz für die Verabreichung von Muskelrelaxanzien.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Gehweiler I and II fractures are isolated fractures of the anterior or posterior atlas arch and are considered stable.

    “Bei Gehweiler-I-und -II-Frakturen handelt es sich um isolierte Frakturen des vorderen oder hinteren Atlasbogens, die als stabil anzusehen sind.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In Gehweiler IIIa injuries, the transverse ligament is intact.

    “Bei den Gehweiler-III a-Verletzungen ist das Lig.transversum intakt, sodass zumindest eine ligamentäre Verbindung zwischen den beiden Bogenhälften besteht.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In Gehweiler IV fractures, the C I/II joints on the affected side can be involved in the fracture.

    “Bei Gehweiler-IV-Frakturen ist zusätzlich zu beachten, dass die Gelenke C I/II auf der betroffenen Seite mit in die Fraktur einbezogen sein können.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Cervical orthoses reduce the mobility of the cervical spine to varying degrees.

    “Die zervikalen Orthesen reduzieren die Beweglichkeit der Halswirbelsäule in unterschiedlichem Ausmaß.”
11 of 11

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [7]7. Schleicher P, Scholz M, Kandziora F et al. Therapieempfehlun- gen zur Versorgung von Verletzungen der subaxialen Halswir- belsäule. Z Orthop Unfall 2017; 155: 556-566

Metadata

Authors
Badke, A.
Corresponding author
Badke, Andreas
Venue
OP-Journal
Published
2018-07
Volume
34
Issue
02
Pages
134-137
ISSN
  • 0178-1715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1439-2496
OpenAlex
W2885094327
Cited by
4
References
12
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.26
Type
journal article
Language
de
Open access
Locations
OP-Journal (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
Keywords
cervical spine injury, conservative treatment, cervical spine stability, injury classification, diagnostic imaging, physiotherapy, neck trauma

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review