Literature DB >> 34256792

Evaluation of using the Anderson-Montesano and the Tuli classifications in pediatric patients with occipital condyle fractures.

Ryszard Tomaszewski1,2, Jacek Kler3, Karol Pethe3, Agnieszka Zachurzok4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Occipital condyle fractures (OCFs) in patients before 18 years of age are rare. Classifications of OCF are based on the CT images of the cranio-cervical junction (CCJ) and MRI. The Anderson-Montesano and Tuli classifications are the types which are most commonly used in these cases. Classification of OCFs allows the implementation of OCF treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of using the OCF classification in pediatric patients based on the analysis of our own cases.
METHODS: During the years 2013-2020, 6 pediatric patients with OCFs, aged 14-18, have been treated. Two patients with unstable fracture III according to Anderson-Montesano and IIB according to Tuli were treated with the halo-vest. Additionally, one patient presenting neurological symptoms and with an associated C1 fracture was qualified for the halo-vest stabilization as well. The other patients were treated with a Minerva collar. We evaluated the results 6 months after completing the OCF treatment using the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and SF-36 questionnaires. Confidence intervals for the mean values were verified using the MeanCI function (from the R library DescTools) for both classical and bootstrap methods.
RESULTS: Based on NDI results, we have obtained in our patients an average of 4.33/45 points (2-11) and 9.62% (4.4-24.4). Based on the SF-36 questionnaire, we obtained an average of 88.62% (47.41-99.44).
CONCLUSION: The Anderson-Montesano and Tuli's classifications of OCF can be used to assess the stability of OCF in adolescents, but both classifications should be used simultaneously. CT and MR imaging should be used in diagnosing OCFs, whereas CT allows assessing therapeutic outcomes in OCF.
© 2021. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Children; Classifications; Cranio-cervical junction (CCJ); Occipital condyle fracture (OCF); Treatment

Year:  2021        PMID: 34256792     DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02463-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res        ISSN: 1749-799X            Impact factor:   2.359


  7 in total

1.  Occipital condylar fractures in children: rare or underdiagnosed?

Authors:  E-M Strehle; V Tolinov
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2011-11-10       Impact factor: 2.419

2.  Occipital condyle fractures: clinical presentation and imaging findings in 76 patients.

Authors:  Joseph M Aulino; Leslie K Tutt; Jeremy J Kaye; Philip W Smith; John A Morris
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2005-07-15

Review 3.  Imaging, clearance, and controversies in pediatric cervical spine trauma.

Authors:  Sonny T Tat; Michelle J Mejia; Robert J Freishtat
Journal:  Pediatr Emerg Care       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 1.454

4.  Occipital condyle fracture and ligament injury: imaging by CT.

Authors:  A I Bloom; Z Neeman; Y Floman; J Gomori; J Bar-Ziv
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  1996-11

5.  Relationship between height, sitting height and subischial leg length in Dutch children: presentation of normal values.

Authors:  W J Gerver; R De Bruin
Journal:  Acta Paediatr       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 2.299

Review 6.  Occipital condyle fractures: report of five cases and literature review.

Authors:  Emanuela Caroli; Giovanni Rocchi; Epimenio Ramundo Orlando; Roberto Delfini
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-03-08       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Fractures of the occipital condyle clinical spectrum and course in eight patients.

Authors:  Antonio Krüger; Ludwig Oberkircher; Thomas Frangen; Steffen Ruchholtz; Christian Kühne; Andreas Junge
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2013-07
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.