Management of combined atlas-axis fractures: a review of forty one cases

The establishment of a novel upper cervical complex fracture classification system

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Upper cervical complex fractures are associated with high rates of neurological damage and mortality. The Dickman's classification is widely used in the diagnosis of upper cervical complex fractures. However, it falls short of covering the full spectrum of complex fractures. This limitation hinders effective diagnosis and treatment of these injuries.

PURPOSE

To address the diagnostic gap in upper cervical complex fractures, the study introduces a novel classification system for these injuries, assessing its reliability and usability.

STUDY DESIGN

Proposal of a new classification system for upper cervical complex fractures.

PATIENT SAMPLE

The study comprised the clinical data of 242 patients with upper cervical complex fractures, including 32 patients treated at our hospital, along with an additional 210 cases from the literature.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The interobserver and intra-observer reliability (kappa coefficient, κ) of this classification system were investigated by 3 spine surgeons. The 3 researchers independently reevaluated the upper cervical complex fracture classification system 3 months later.

METHODS

The proposed classification categorizes upper cervical complex fractures into 3 main types: Type I combines odontoid and Hangman's fractures into 2 subtypes; Type II merges C1 with odontoid/Hangman's fractures into 3 subtypes; and Type III encompasses a combination of C1, odontoid, and Hangman's fractures, divided into 2 subtypes. Meanwhile, a questionnaire was administered in 15 assessors to evaluate the system's ease of use and clinical applicability.

RESULTS

A total of 45 cases (18.6%) unclassifiable by Dickman's classification were successfully categorized using our system. The mean κ value of inter-observer reliability was 0.783, indicating substantial reliability. The mean κ value of intraobserver reliability was 0.862, indicating almost perfect reliability. Meanwhile, thirteen assessors (87.7%) stated that the classification system is easy to remember, easy to apply, and they expressed intentions to apply it in clinical practice in the future.

CONCLUSIONS

This system not only offers high confidence and reproducibility but also serves as a precise guide for clinicians in formulating treatment plans. Future prospective applications are warranted to further evaluate this classification system.

Atlas fractures with and without simultaneous dens fractures differ with respect to clinical, demographic, and management characteristics

Background

Patients with simultaneous fractures of the atlas and dens have traditionally been managed according to the dens fracture's morphology, but data supporting this practice are limited.

Methods

We retrospectively examined all patients with traumatic atlas fractures at our institution between 2008 and 2016. We used multivariable regression and propensity score matching to compare the presentation, management, and outcomes of patients with isolated atlas fractures to patients with simultaneous atlas-dens fractures.

Results

Ninety-nine patients were identified. Patients with isolated atlas fractures were younger (61 ± 22 vs. 77 ± 14, P = 0.0003), had lower median Charlson Comorbidity Index (3 vs. 5, P = 0.0005), had better presenting Nurick myelopathy scores (0 vs. 3, P < 0.0001), and had different mechanisms of injury (P = 0.0011). Multivariable regression showed that having a simultaneous atlas-dens fracture was independently associated with older age (odds ratio [OR] =1.59 [1.22, 2.07], P = 0.001), worse presenting myelopathy (OR = 3.10 [2.04, 4.16], P < 0.001), and selection for surgery (OR = 4.91 [1.10, 21.97], P = 0.037). Propensity score matching yielded balanced populations (Rubin's B = 23.3, Rubin's R = 1.96) and showed that the risk of atlas fracture nonunion was no different among isolated atlas fractures compared to simultaneous atlas-dens fractures (P = 0.304). Age was the only variable independently associated with atlas fracture nonunion (OR = 2.39 [1.15, 5.00], P = 0.020), having a simultaneous atlas-dens fracture was not significant (P = 0.2829).

Conclusions

Among patients with atlas fractures, simultaneous fractures of the dens occur in older patients and confer an increased risk of myelopathy and requiring surgical stabilization. Controlling for confounders, the risk of atlas fracture nonunion is equivalent for isolated atlas fractures versus simultaneous atlas-dens fractures.

Management of combined atlas and axis fractures: a systematic 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.

Combined Odontoid (C2) and Atlas (C1) Fractures in Geriatric Patients: A Systematic Review and Treatment Recommendation

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic overview of the pathogenesis and the treatment options of combined odontoid and atlas fractures in geriatric patients.

METHODS

This review is based on articles retrieved by a systematic search in the PubMed and Web of Science databases for articles published until February 2021 dealing with combination fractures of C1 and C2 in geriatric patients.

RESULTS

Altogether, 438 articles were retrieved from the literature search. A total of 430 articles were excluded. The remaining eight original articles were included in this systematic review depicting the topics pathogenesis, non-operative treatment, posterior approach, and anterior approach. The overall level of evidence of the studies is low.

CONCLUSION

Combined odontoid and atlas fractures in the geriatric population are commonly caused by simple falls and seem to be associated with atlanto-odontoid osteoarthritis. Non-operative treatment with a cervical orthosis is a feasible treatment option in the majority of patients with stable C2 fractures. In case of surgery posterior C1 and C 2 stabilization and anterior triple or quadruple screw fixation are possible techniques. Some patients may also deserve an occipito-cervical fusion. A possible treatment algorithm is proposed.

Efficacy and Safety of Goel-Harms Technique in Upper Cervical Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The main purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the incidence of implant-associated complications and fusion rates for the Goel-Harms technique (GHT) and to show potential factors affecting the complications and nonunion development.

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed database according to PRISMA guidance was performed. The main inclusion criteria comprised description of fusion rate and/or implant-associated complications rate.

RESULTS

This systematic review included 86 articles focused on the results of surgery in 4208 patients. The rate of screw-related complications was as follows: 1) vertebral artery (VA) injury, 2.8%; 2) screw malposition in the direction of the VA, 5.8%; and 3) C2 nerve root irritation, 6.1%. The nonunion rate was 4.2%. Transpedicular screw insertion to the C1 and C2 vertebrae were the safest regarding VA injury and correlated with lower blood loss. For C1-C2 fusion, there was no statistical difference for the different bone graft localization. C2 nerve root irritation rate did not depend on screw insertion technique. The use of a freehand technique did not correlate with a high rate of screw-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The Goel-Harms technique is a promising method of C1-C2 fusion, with a relatively low nonunion and VA injury rate. It can be performed safely without C-arm or navigation system assistance. Transpedicular screw insertion trajectories to the C1 and C2 vertebrae were safest regarding VA injury and blood loss volume. Further comparative studies of various C1-C2 stabilization methods with a high level of significance should be carried out to identify the optimal approach.

Management of Combined Atlas Fracture with Type II Odontoid Fracture: A Review of 21 Cases

PURPOSE

To evaluate the therapeutic effects of combined atlas fracture with type II (C₁-type II) odontoid fractures and to outline a management strategy for it.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Twenty three patients with C₁-type II odontoid fractures were treated according to our management strategy. Nonoperative external immobilization in the form of cervical collar and halo vest was used in 13 patients with stable atlantoaxial joint. Surgical treatment was early performed in 10 patients whose fractures with traumatic transverse atlantal ligament disruption or atlantoaxial instability. The visual analog scale (VAS), neck disability index (NDI) scale, and American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) scale at each stage of followup were then collected and compared.

RESULTS

Compared to pretreatment, the VAS score, NDI score, and ASIA scale were improved among both groups at followup evaluation after treatment. However, in the nonsurgical group, one patient (1/11) developed nonunion which required surgical treatment in later stage and one patient (1/13) with halo vest immobilization had happened pin site infection. Two patients of the surgical group (2/11) had appeared minor complications: occipital cervical pain in one case and cerebrospinal fluid leakage in one case. Two patients (2/23) were excluded from nonsurgical treatment group because their followup period was less than 12 months. Twenty one patients were followed up regularly with an average of 23.9 months (range 15-45 months).

CONCLUSIONS

We outlined our concluding management principle for the treatment of C₁-type II odontoid fractures based on the nature of C₁ fracture and atlantoaxial stability. The treatment principle can obtain satisfactory results for the management of C₁-type II odontoid fractures.

Management of occipitocervical junction and upper cervical trauma

Objective:

The treatment modality of occipitocervical junction (OCJ) and upper cervical traumas carries great importance because of unique form of bone, complex ligamentous, and neurovascular structure.

Materials and Methods:

Eighty-eight patients were admitted to Mersin University Department of Neurosurgery between January 2007 and January 2017 for injuries of the OCJ and upper cervical spine and evaluated retrospectively. In the group, there were 60 male, 28 female patients in the mean age of 42.9 (18–87) years. Among those, 2 occipital condyle fractures, 28 C1 fractures (26 isolated and 2 with transverse ligament injury), 9 combined C1/C2 fractures, 6 rotatory C1/C2 dislocations, and 43 C2 fractures (32 odontoid, 5 Hangman's, and 6 miscellaneous fractures) were diagnosed. In addition to clinical cases, ten cadavers were used to study the OCJ in a step-wise manner.

Results:

Occipital condyle fractures, isolated C1 fractures, and rotatory C1/C2 dislocations were treated conservatively. Two patients with C1 fracture including transverse ligament injury were operated in one of the methods of C1–C2 fusion which is posterior sublaminar wiring. Five patients having Type II odontoid fracture were treated surgically. One instable Hangman's fracture patient was treated as anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Conclusions:

Cases with isolated C1 fracture with intact transverse ligament should be conservatively treated without surgical approach. Atlas fractures with transverse ligament rupture, odontoid Type II fractures with dislocation >6 mm, and unstable Hangman's fractures required surgical treatment. Vital neurovascular, ligamentous, and accompanying bone structures should be evaluated for diagnosis and treatment modality. In addition, patient's health status, patient's treatment preference, and surgical team experience are the affecting factors for the decision of surgery.