Literature DB >> 19951016

Operative versus nonoperative management of acute odontoid Type II fractures: a meta-analysis.

Ali Nourbakhsh1, Runhua Shi, Prasad Vannemreddy, Anil Nanda.   

Abstract

OBJECT: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of the criteria described in the literature as the indications for surgery for acute Type II odontoid fractures.
METHODS: The authors searched the PubMed database for studies in which the fusion rate of acute Type II odontoid fractures following external immobilization (halo vest or collar) or surgery (posterior C1-2 fusion or anterior screw fixation) was reported. The only studies included reported the fusion rate for either 1) groups of patients whose age was either more or less than a certain age range (45-55 years); or 2) groups of patients with a fracture displacement of either more or less than a certain odontoid fracture displacement (4-6 mm) or the direction of displacement (see Methods section of text for more details). A meta-analysis in which the random effect model was used was conducted to analyze the data.
RESULTS: There was a statistically significantly higher fusion rate for operative management compared with external immobilization (85 vs 60%, p = 0.01) for the patients > 45-55 years. However, the overall fusion rate was > 80% for the patients whose age was < 45-55 years, regardless of treatment modality, and no significant differences were observed between surgically and nonsurgically treated patients (89 and 81%, respectively; p = 0.29). The result of operation (overall fusion rate 89%) was superior to external immobilization (44%) when the fracture was posteriorly displaced (p < 0.001), but for anteriorly displaced fractures, the results of operative and nonoperative management were identical (p = 0.15). The overall fusion rate of operative management of both anteriorly and posteriorly displaced fractures proved to be > 85%, and no statistically significant difference was observed (p = 0.50). For all degrees of displacement (either > or < 4-6 mm) the operation proved to provide significantly better results than conservative treatment. The fusion rate of conservatively treated fractures with < 4-6 mm displacement was significantly better than in fractures with > 4-6 mm displacement (76 vs 41%, p = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: Operative treatment (posterior C1-2 fixation or anterior screw fixation) provides a better fusion rate than external immobilization for acute odontoid Type II fractures, although in certain situations, such as anterior displacement of the fracture and for younger (< 45-55 years of age) patients, conservative management (halo vest or collar immobilization) can be as effective as surgery. Operative management is recommended in older patients, in cases of posterior displacement of the fracture, and when there is displacement of > 4-6 mm.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19951016     DOI: 10.3171/2009.7.SPINE0991

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine        ISSN: 1547-5646


  17 in total

1.  Anterior screw fixation of type IIB odontoid fractures in octogenarians.

Authors:  P L Hénaux; F Cueff; S Diabira; L Riffaud; A Hamlat; G Brassier; X Morandi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-10-19       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Fractures of C2 (Axis) Vertebra: Clinical Presentation and Management.

Authors:  Ahmed Bakhsh; Ahmed Alzahrani; Ali Hassan Aljuzair; Umair Ahmed; Hany Eldawoody
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-12-29

3.  Cost Effectiveness of Operative Versus Non-Operative Treatment of Geriatric Type-II Odontoid Fracture.

Authors:  Daniel R Barlow; Brendan T Higgins; Elissa M Ozanne; Anna N A Tosteson; Adam M Pearson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 4.  The impact of odontoid screw fixation techniques on screw-related complications and fusion rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ivan Lvov; Andrey Grin; Aleksandr Talypov; Ivan Godkov; Anton Kordonskiy; Ulugbek Khushnazarov; Vladimir Smirnov; Vladimir Krylov
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-06-15       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Anterior single screw fixation of odontoid fracture with intraoperative Iso-C 3-dimensional imaging.

Authors:  Yong Liang Yang; Bai Sheng Fu; Rachel W Li; Paul N Smith; Wei Dong Mu; Lian Xin Li; Dong Sheng Zhou
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-06-04       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Radiographic analysis of type II odontoid fractures in a geriatric patient population: description and pathomechanism of the "Geier"-deformity.

Authors:  Maximilian Reinhold; C Bellabarba; R Bransford; J Chapman; W Krengel; M Lee; T Wagner
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-07-28       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  An experience with Goel-Harms C1-C2 fixation for type II odontoid fractures.

Authors:  Amit Kumar Jain; Manish Tawari; Lavlesh Rathore; Debabrata Sahana; Harshit Mishra; Sanjeev Kumar; Rajiv Kumar Sahu
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2022-06-13

8.  Development and first application testing of a new protocol for CT-based stability evaluation of the injured upper cervical spine.

Authors:  Matthias K Jung; Lukas Hörnig; Michael M A Stübs; Paul A Grützner; Michael Kreinest
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2021-05-25       Impact factor: 3.693

9.  The AOSpine North America Geriatric Odontoid Fracture Mortality Study: a retrospective review of mortality outcomes for operative versus nonoperative treatment of 322 patients with long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Jens Chapman; Justin S Smith; Branko Kopjar; Alexander R Vaccaro; Paul Arnold; Christopher I Shaffrey; Michael G Fehlings
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 10.  Surgical versus conservative management for odontoid fractures.

Authors:  Emma Shears; Christopher P Armitstead
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2008-10-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.