Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
We carried out a retrospective cohort study to differentiate geriatric odontoid fractures into stable and unstable and correlated it with fracture fusion rates. Results are based on the literature and on our own experience. The authors propose that the simple Anderson and D’Alonzo classification may not be sufficient for geriatric patients.
Methods
There were 89 patients ≥ 65 years who presented at our institution with type II and III odontoid fractures from 2003 until 2017 and were included in this study. Each patient was categorized with CT scans to evaluate the type of fracture, fracture gap (mm), fracture angulation (°), fracture displacement (mm) and direction (ventral, dorsal). Fractures were categorized as stable [SF] or unstable [UF] distinguished by the parameters of its angulation (< / > 11°) and displacement (< / > 5 mm) with a follow-up time of 6 months.
SFs were treated with a semi-rigid immobilization for 6 weeks, UFs surgically—preferably with a C1–C2 posterior fusion.
Results
The classification into SFs and UFs was significant for its angulation (P = 0.0006) and displacement (P < 0.0001). SF group (n = 57): A primary stable union was observed in 35, a stable non-union in 10, and an unstable non-union in 8 patients of which 4 were treated with a C1/2 fixation. The overall consolidation rate was 79%. UF group (n = 32): A posterior C1–C2 fusion was carried out in 23 patients, a C0 onto C4 stabilization in 7 and an anterior odontoid screw fixation in 2. The union rate was 100%. Twenty-one type II SFs (91%) consolidated with a nonoperative management (P < 0.001). A primary non-union occurred more often in type II than in type III fractures (P = 0.0023). There was no significant difference in the 30-day overall case fatality (P = 0.3786).
Conclusion
To separate dens fractures into SFs and UFs is feasible. For SFs, semi-rigid immobilization provides a high consolidation rate. Stable non-unions are acceptable, and the authors suggest a posterior transarticular C1–C2 fixation as the preferred surgical treatment for UFs.
Level of evidence
Level III.
Funder
Paracelsus Medical University
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine,Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Emergency Medicine,Surgery
Reference51 articles.
1. Korres DS. Fractures of the odontoid process. In: Korres DS, editor. The axis vertebra. Rome: Springer; 2013. p. 45–9.
2. Ryan MD, Henderson JJ. The epidemiology of fractures and fracture-dislocation of the cervical spine. Injury. 2002;23:38–40.
3. Gauer JN, Shafi B, Hilibrand AS, Harrop J, Kwon BK, Beiner JM, Albert TJ, Fehlings MG, Vaccaro AR. Proposal of a modified, treatment-oriented classification of odontoid fractures. Spine J. 2005;5:123–9.
4. Korres DS, Macrogenis AF, Gratsias P, Posantzis MJ, Giannakopoulos EA, Efstathopoulos NE. Type D fractures of the odontoid process. ArgoSpine News J. 2011;23(3):125–8.
5. Elgafy H, Dvorak MF, Vaccaro AR, Ebraheim N. Treatment of displaced type II odontoid fractures in the elderly patients. Am J Ortohop (Belle Mead NJ). 2009;28(8):410–6.
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献