Talk:Craniocervical instability

2019-08-19T12:16:05Z

Eldask:/* Translational BAI is wrong based on n=400 study -- ~~~~ -- ~~~~ */ new section

== Alternative / additional images -- [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:58, July 30, 2019 (EDT) ==

*[https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Magnetic-resonance-imaging-of-the-patients-cervical-spine-demonstrating-skull-base-and_fig1_329064969 Awake fiberoptic orotracheal intubation using a modified Guedel airway in a patient with craniocervical instability and an anticipated difficult airway - A case report] has images licensed for Non-commercial use. See [[Help:ADDCOPYRIGHT]] and [[MEpedia:Copyright]] for info on user. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:58, July 30, 2019 (EDT)

== Translational BAI is wrong based on n=400 study -- [[User:Eldask|Eldask]] ([[User talk:Eldask|talk]]) 08:16, August 19, 2019 (EDT) -- [[User:Eldask|Eldask]] ([[User talk:Eldask|talk]]) 08:16, August 19, 2019 (EDT) ==

I have growing concern regarding the work of the big 4 on CCI.

Henderson's work is being cited left and right with no fact checking, which is extremely dangerous considering the seriousness and impact of craniocervical arthrodesis.

This page states a translational BAI bigger than 2 or 4 as pathological, yet, a study referenced by Henderson (https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.162.4.8141012) states "The excursion of the basion in flexion and extension ranged from 0 to 10 mm, but did not exceed the 12-mm limit of normal" on n=392 healthy subjects.

Though translational BAI below 10mm may in certain cases indeed be pathological, I strongly recommend amending that metric to reflect that objective study and not blurring the picture with metrics which are neither particularly sensitive or specific.

MEpedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Craniocervical instability