Talk:Hangman's fracture

message: The ensemble of the text and the picture is not really illucidating. The legend of the picture uses another nomenclature than the text.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.132.237.2 (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: An anonymous poster has mentioned that Christopher Reeve suffered a hangman's fracture during his horseriding accident. The mechanism of a hangman's fracture is hyperextension and distraction, whereas it is clear that Reeve's injury was caused by compression as he fell onto his head, even although he suffered fractures of C2 and C1. I have therefore reverted this edit. Preacherdoc 21:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christopher Reeve 

message: The text has: "The most common scenario would be a frontal motor vehicle accident with an unrestrained passenger or driver, with the person striking the dashboard or windshield with their face or chin. Other scenarios would include falls, diving injuries, and collisions between players in contact sports." Is there some reason why it doesn't simply say "scenario is" and "scenarios include"? —84.189.80.141 (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a reason for conditional modals? 

message: 'A common sign is a constricted pupil (Horner's syndrome) on the ipsilateral side due to loss of sympathetic innervation to the eye, caused by damage to the sympathetic trunk in the neck.'
A Hangman's fracture is a bilateral one - ipsilateral to what?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.130.22 (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constricted pupil 

message: While the overall vagueness of the article is frustrating, there appears to be some generalizations and misinformation regarding the resulting injuries following a C2 "hangman's" fracture. From my personal experience and dealings with medical professionals in this field, the "halo" device is not as commonly used to treat unstable hangman fractures as used in previous years. Furthermore, the hangman's fracture at the C2 vertebra has been explained to me to survival rate of around 30% with a significant percentage suffering from permanent spinal cord and brain injuries. It is not necessarily the fracture itself that is referred to as the "hangman's fracture" but the resulting injury where as the initial fracture, secondary inflammation and swelling, spinal cord and head/brain injuries can often result in secondary injuries that hinders, block or even crush the airway, resulting in an array of other life-threatening situations. Suffocation from the impeded airway is a serious danger in these injuries, often times resulting in death, brain damage, loss of oxygen to vital organs or paralysis from initial injury or from emergency life-saving field medical care.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimrod4782 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resulting Injuries 

message: I think the article misses some information about different types/severity levels of Hangman's fractures. A common classification differentiates the fractures by their horizontal displacement, angulation and involvement of intravertebral structures, which give a hint about the stability of the injury and the likelihood of complications like spinal cord injury, vertebral artery dissection (-> possible stroke), airway compromise and so on. The severity and type of displacement also determines if conservative treatment is appropriate or surgical fixation needed. I just can't see right now where I could put this information into the article... --79.243.242.214 (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification of Hangman's fractures