-
Evidence-based Spine-care Journal May 2010Os odontoideum is a rare condition with a controversial pathogenesis and poorly understood natural history. As a result, it is difficult for clinicians to predict...
INTRODUCTION
Os odontoideum is a rare condition with a controversial pathogenesis and poorly understood natural history. As a result, it is difficult for clinicians to predict which patients require surgical fusion to prevent symptomatic progression and potentially devastating neurologic injury.
METHODS
We undertook a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the clinical outcomes in the treatment of asymptomatic and symptomatic cases of os odontoideum. Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane, National Guideline Clearinghouse Databases as well as bibliographies of key articles were searched. Articles were reviewed by two independently working reviewers. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were set and each article was subject to a predefined quality rating scheme.
RESULTS
We identified eleven articles meeting our inclusion criteria. Seven studies included patients with asymptomatic os odontoideum discovered incidentally from which it was possible to examine data on 18 individuals. Six studies were identified containing more than 15 patients with symptomatic os odontoideum.
CONCLUSION
The existing literature regarding both asymptomatic or symptomatic os odontoideum and its treatment is very limited. No definitive conclusions can be drawn from these studies. A basic approach to the management of os odontoideum is offered based on the findings of this study.
PubMed: 23544027
DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1100896 -
North American Spine Society Journal Jun 2023Combined atlas-axis fractures are rare occurrences with substantially higher rates of neurologic deficits compared with isolated injuries. Given the intricate anatomic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Combined atlas-axis fractures are rare occurrences with substantially higher rates of neurologic deficits compared with isolated injuries. Given the intricate anatomic relationship between the atlas and axis vertebra, variable fracture patterns may occur, warranting special considerations from surgeons.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE was performed following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies on acute combined atlas-axis fractures that provided data on patient demographics, presentation (injury mechanism, neurologic deficits, fracture type), management, complications, and study conclusions were reviewed.
RESULTS
A total of 22 articles published from 1977 to 2022, comprising 230 patients, were included in the final analysis. Thirty-seven of the 213 patients (17%) presented with neurologic deficits. The most common atlas injuries were posterior arch fractures (54/169 patients; 32%), combined posterior arch/anterior arch fractures (44/169 patients; 26%), and anterior arch fractures (43/169 patients; 25%). The most common axis injuries were type II odontoid fractures (115/175 patients; 66%). Of the 127 patients managed operatively (127/230 patients; 55%), 45 patients (35%) were treated with C1-C2 posterior spinal fusion, 33 patients (26%) were treated with odontoid screw fixation and anterior/posterior C1-C2 trans-articular screws, 16 patients (13%) were treated with occiputocervical fusion and 12 patients (9%) were treated with odontoid screw fixation alone.
CONCLUSIONS
Management strategies are generally based on the type of axis fracture as well as the condition of the transverse ligament. Patients with stable fractures can be successfully managed nonoperatively with a cervical collar or halo immobilization. Combined atlas-axis fractures with an atlantodental interval >5 mm, C1 lateral mass displacement >7 mm, C2-C3 angulation >11° or an MRI demonstrating a disrupted transverse ligament are suggestive of instability and are often successfully managed with surgical intervention. There is no consensus regarding surgical technique.
PubMed: 37440984
DOI: 10.1016/j.xnsj.2023.100224 -
European Spine Journal : Official... Mar 2006During the past 30 years various treatment protocols for hangman's fractures have been attempted. In order to guide the management of hangman's fractures, different... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
During the past 30 years various treatment protocols for hangman's fractures have been attempted. In order to guide the management of hangman's fractures, different classifications have been introduced. However, opinions on operative or nonoperative treatment have not yet been solidified. To evaluate both conservative and operative management of hangman's fractures in the published literature and to provide appropriate guidelines for treatment of hangman's fractures, a systematic review of the literature regarding the management of hangman's fractures was performed. An English literature search from January 1966 to January 2004 was completed with reference to treatment of hangman's fractures. The classification for treatment guidance from the literature was also reviewed. Regarding a primary therapy for hangman's fractures, there were 20 papers (62.5%) that advocated for a conservative treatment and 11 of the remaining 12 papers suggested that conservative treatment was suitable for some stable fractures. The classification of Effendi et al. modified by Levine and Edwards was used widely. Most hangman's fractures could be managed successfully with traction and external immobilization, especially in Effendi Type I, Type II and Levine-Edwards Type II fractures. It is necessary for Levine-Edwards Type IIa and III fractures to be treated with rigid immobilization. Only for some stable Type I and Levine-Edwards Type II injuries, nonrigid external fixation alone was sufficient. Rigid immobilization alone was necessary for most cases. Surgical stabilization is recommended in unstable cases when there is the possibility of later instability, such as Levine-Edwards Type IIa and III fractures with significant dislocation. The classification system proposed by Effendi et al. and modified by Levine and Edwards provided a clinically reasonable guideline for successful management of hangman's fractures.
Topics: Axis, Cervical Vertebra; Cervical Vertebrae; Evidence-Based Medicine; Fracture Fixation; Humans; Spinal Fractures; Spondylolisthesis
PubMed: 16235100
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-005-0918-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2008Fractures of the odontoid process of the second cervical vertebra can result in instability, neurological damage and death. Treatment includes conservative management... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fractures of the odontoid process of the second cervical vertebra can result in instability, neurological damage and death. Treatment includes conservative management (external immobilisation devices) or surgical treatment (internal fixation by posterior fusion or anterior screw fixation).
OBJECTIVES
To compare surgical with conservative treatment for fractures of the odontoid process.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (February 2008), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2008), EMBASE (1988 to February 2008), LILACS (accessed February 2008), reference lists of articles and registries of ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing surgical versus conservative management of odontoid fractures.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently examined the search results to identify trials for inclusion.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not identify any studies that met our inclusion criteria. We excluded one ongoing and registered study that is comparing surgery versus conservative treatment because it does not involve randomisation of treatment allocation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence available from adequately controlled trials to inform the decision on whether the surgical treatment of odontoid fractures gives a better outcome. A sufficiently powered good quality multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing surgery versus conservative treatment is warranted.
Topics: Fracture Fixation; Humans; Odontoid Process; Spinal Fractures
PubMed: 18843678
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005078.pub2 -
European Spine Journal : Official... Jan 2013Odontoid fractures are the most common cervical spine fractures in the elderly. As the population ages, their incidence is expected to increase progressively. The... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Odontoid fractures are the most common cervical spine fractures in the elderly. As the population ages, their incidence is expected to increase progressively. The optimal treatment of this condition is still the subject of controversy. The objective of this review is to summarize and compare the outcome of surgical and conservative interventions in the elderly (≥ 65 years).
METHODS
A comprehensive search was conducted in nine databases of medical literature, supplemented by reference and citation tracking. Clinical status was considered the primary outcome. Fracture union and stability rates were considered secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies were performed retrospectively and were of limited quality. There was insufficient data, especially from direct comparisons, to determine the difference in clinical outcome between surgical and conservative interventions. Osseous union was achieved in 66-85 % of surgically treated patients and in 28-44 % of conservatively treated patients. Fracture stability was achieved in 82-97 % of surgically patients and in 53-79 % of conservatively treated patients.
CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient data to determine a potential difference in clinical outcome between different treatment groups. Surgically treated patients showed higher osseous union rates compared to conservatively treated patients, possibly because of different selection mechanisms. The majority of patients appears to achieve fracture stability regardless of the applied treatment. A prospective trial with appropriate sample size is needed to identify the optimal treatment of odontoid fractures in the elderly and predictors for the success of either one of the available treatments.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Female; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Humans; Male; Odontoid Process; Spinal Fractures
PubMed: 22941218
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-012-2452-3