Abstract
Introduction: Sports injuries to the cervical spine account for about one in ten of all cervical spine injuries. They occur at all levels of participation. Fortunately, the number of patients suffering spinal cord injury is relatively small. Neurological injuries may range from transient quadriparesis through to complete quadriplegia. The decision to allow sportsmen to return to sport following a cervical spine injury is complex. It is based on such factors as history, clinical examination, the nature of the injury, as well as age and other psychosocial factors. The evidence that exists to aid this decision process is at times conflicting. The aim of this presentation is to review some of the contentious issues that exist in the decision making by reference to case presentations of high level sportsmen who were treated following a variety of cervical spine injuries.
Methods: Four high-level rugby players (22–31 years old) presented with different cervical spine injuries sustained during sporting activities. Two subjects sustained a “stinger” and two a transient quadriparesis which rapidly resolved. Radiological evaluation included assessment of spinal canal diameter.1
Results: Two had a C5-6 disc bulge with developmental spinal stenosis. A third had a congenital fusion C2-3 with a disc bulge and developmental stenosis at C3-4. Case 4 had degenerative disc disease at C5-6. All were treated non-operatively and returned to sport. All suffered a recurrence of the neurological symptoms and subsequently underwent an anterior interbody fusion (Case 4 for subluxation of C6-7). Three successfully resumed rugby six months after surgery while one elected not to continue.
Discussion: The decision to allow a patient to return to contact sports following a cervical spine injury may be difficult. The four cases presented highlight some of these contentious issues such as transient neurological deficit and the effect that surgery may have on a patient’s ability to return safely to sport. A review of the literature may assist in the decision making.1,2 This may be conflicting and difficult to interpret. Neurological signs, instability, displacement, fusion of more than one level and occipito-atlanto-axial pathologies are considered absolute contraindications.3
The abstracts were prepared by I. B. McPhee. Correspondence should be addressed to the Spine Society of Australia Secretariat, The Adelaide Centre for Spinal Research, Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science, PO Box 14, Rundle Mall, Adelaide SA 5000, Australia.
References:
1 Torg JS, Pavlov H, Genuario SE, et al. Neurapraxia of the cervical spinal cord with transient quadriplegia. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68:1354–70 Google Scholar
2 Torg JS, Corcoran TA, Thibault LE, et al. Cervical cord neurapraxia: classification, pathomechanics, morbidity, and management guidelines. J Neurosurg. 1997; 87:843–50. Google Scholar
3 Vaccaro AR, Klein GR, Coccoti M, et al; Return to play criteria for the athlete with cervical spine injuries resulting in stinger and transient quadriplegia/paresis. Spine J. 2002; 2:351–356. Google Scholar
