BACKGROUND: Odontoid fractures are the most common odontoid injury and often cause atlantoaxial instability. Reports on postoperative status of patients who underwent surgery for such injuries are limited to small case series, and it is unclear whether any one technique produces better outcomes than another. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We assessed the quality of the available literature for management of Type II odontoid fractures and surgery-related parameters, including surgical indications, clinical failure rate, and survivorship, postoperative ROM and function, neurologic deficits, complication and death rates, and radiographic healing rates related to either anterior dens screw or posterior C1-C2 fusion. METHODS: We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Ovid, Cochrane Reviews, and Google Scholar databases. We used the methodology score proposed by Coleman et al. to rate study quality. Postoperative imaging bone union rates were extracted. Postoperative complications and neurologic impairment data were also collected. RESULTS: Sixteen retrospective studies of overall low quality (average methodology score, 37.1) reporting a total of 518 patients were included. The methodology score and publication year were positively associated. The bone union rate approximated 83% (range, 33%-100%), with higher nonunion rates among patients older than 65 years. The death rate ranged widely (0%-28.6%) among different centers. Residual cervical pain was documented postoperatively from 10.5% to 26.7%, while survivorship ranged from 72% to 96.6%. No ROM data were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Current data on patients who had surgery for fracture of the dens did not allow us to establish superiority of one surgical approach over another.

The best surgical treatment for type II fractures of the dens is still controversial.

MAFFULLI, Nicola
2011-01-01

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Odontoid fractures are the most common odontoid injury and often cause atlantoaxial instability. Reports on postoperative status of patients who underwent surgery for such injuries are limited to small case series, and it is unclear whether any one technique produces better outcomes than another. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We assessed the quality of the available literature for management of Type II odontoid fractures and surgery-related parameters, including surgical indications, clinical failure rate, and survivorship, postoperative ROM and function, neurologic deficits, complication and death rates, and radiographic healing rates related to either anterior dens screw or posterior C1-C2 fusion. METHODS: We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Ovid, Cochrane Reviews, and Google Scholar databases. We used the methodology score proposed by Coleman et al. to rate study quality. Postoperative imaging bone union rates were extracted. Postoperative complications and neurologic impairment data were also collected. RESULTS: Sixteen retrospective studies of overall low quality (average methodology score, 37.1) reporting a total of 518 patients were included. The methodology score and publication year were positively associated. The bone union rate approximated 83% (range, 33%-100%), with higher nonunion rates among patients older than 65 years. The death rate ranged widely (0%-28.6%) among different centers. Residual cervical pain was documented postoperatively from 10.5% to 26.7%, while survivorship ranged from 72% to 96.6%. No ROM data were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Current data on patients who had surgery for fracture of the dens did not allow us to establish superiority of one surgical approach over another.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11386/4198073
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 64
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact