Odontoid fractures in combination with C1 fractures in the elderly treated by combined anterior odontoid and transarticular C1/2 screw fixation

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.

Prevalence of dysphagia in patients after orthopedic surgery

OBJECTIVES

Oropharyngeal dysphagia is one of the most prevalent health complications in older adults. The prevalence of postoperative dysphagia is expected to rise with the increasing number of older patients undergoing orthopedic surgery; however, the specific prevalence and contributing factors remain unclear. This scoping review aimed to identify the prevalence and factors related to postoperative dysphagia in older orthopedic patients.

METHODS

This review included studies published up to September 2022 on postoperative patients aged ≥ 60 years who underwent orthopedic surgery. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Ichushi-Web.

RESULTS

In total, 21 of the 2158 identified studies were reviewed. The studies were classified into the three categories according to the surgical site: cervical spine disease (n = 12), hip fracture (n = 7), and others (n = 2). The estimated dysphagia prevalence rates [95 % confidence interval] of cervical spine disease, hip fractures, and others were 16 % [8-27], 32 % [15-54], and 6 % [4-8], respectively. Factors related to postoperative dysphagia included cervical alignment in cervical spine disease, being older within the cohort, preoperative health status, malnutrition, and sarcopenia in hip fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of postoperative dysphagia after orthopedic surgery was highest for hip fractures, followed by cervical spine and others. These results suggest non-neurogenic dysphagia in older patients undergoing orthopedic surgery and indicate that sarcopenia may contribute to postoperative dysphagia in this population. Therefore, further research should clarify the trajectory of postoperative dysphagia and the effectiveness of rehabilitation for postoperative dysphagia after orthopedic surgery.

Combined Anterior Odontoid Screw Fixation and C1-C2 Jefferson Fracture Anterior Fixation: A Step-by-Step Technical Note

BACKGROUND

Combined triple atlas (C1)-axis (C2) fixation has been described in previous literature as a safe, effective, and minimally invasive procedure for complex atlas and odontoid fractures that allows for a greater range of motion compared with posterior approaches and atlanto-occipital fusion. However, it is rarely performed due to the occipital-cervical diastasis resulting from often-fractured C1 joint masses. No evidence-based consensus has been reached regarding the treatment of complex atlantoaxial fractures, and the choice of surgical strategy is based only on clinical experience.

METHODS

We report the combined triple C1-C2 fixation technique with manual reduction of the joint masses during patient positioning on the operating table, which allowed for effective stabilization during a single surgical session. We describe our experience in the management of a 75-year-old patient presenting with an acute complex type II fracture of C1, which also involved 1 lateral mass, combined with a type II odontoid fracture and occipital-cervical diastasis.

RESULTS

We provide a step-by-step guide for combined triple C1-C2 anterior fixation with manual fracture reduction and describe the clinical case of an acute complex type II fracture of C1, which also involved 1 lateral mass, combined with a type II odontoid fracture and occipital-cervical diastasis.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined triple C1-C2 fixation represents a safe and efficient minimally invasive anterior approach for complex type II fractures of C1 with type II odontoid fractures. Manual reduction of the joint masses during patient positioning allows for effective stabilization in a single surgical session.

The optimal treatment of type II and III odontoid fractures in the elderly: an updated meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Odontoid fractures are the most common cervical spine fractures in the elderly, with a controversial optimal treatment. The objective of this review was to compare the outcome of surgical and conservative treatments in elderly (≥ 65 years), by updating a systematic review published by the authors in 2013.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted in seven databases. Clinical outcome was the primary outcome. Fracture union- and stability were secondary outcomes. Pooled point estimates and their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived using the random-effects model. A random-effects multivariable meta-regression model was used to correct for baseline co-variates when sufficiently reported.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies met the inclusion criteria, of which forty were case series and one a cohort study. No clinical differences in outcomes including the Neck Disability Index (NDI, 700 patients), Visual Analogue Scale pain (VAS, 180 patients), and Smiley-Webster Scale (SWS, 231 patients) scores were identified between surgical and conservative treatments. However, fracture union was higher in surgically treated patients (pooled incidence 72.7%, 95% CI 66.1%, 78.5%, 31 studies, 988 patients) than in conservatively treated patients (40.2%, 95% CI 32.0%, 49.0%, 22 studies, 912 patients). This difference remained after correcting for age and fracture type. Fracture stability (41 studies, 1917 patients), although numerically favoring surgery, did not appear to differ between treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

While surgically treated patients showed higher union rates than conservatively treated patients, no clinically relevant differences were observed in NDI, VAS pain, and SWS scores and stability rates. These results need to be further confirmed in well-designed comparative studies with proper adjustment for confounding, such as age, fracture characteristics, and osteoporosis degree.

Regional variations in C1-C2 bone density on quantitated computed tomography and clinical implications

Background

Our elderly population is growing and the number of spine fractures in the elderly is also growing. The elderly population in general may be considered as poor surgical candidates experience a high rate of fractures at C1 and C2 compared with the general population. Nonoperative management of upper cervical fractures is not benign as there is a high nonunion rate for both C1 and C2 fractures in the elderly, and orthosis compliance is often suboptimal, or complicated by skin breakdown. The optimal technique for upper cervical stabilization in the elderly may be different than in younger populations as the bone quality is inferior in the elderly. The objective of this basic science study is to determine whether the bone mineral density (BMD) of C1 and C2 vary by region, and if this is a gender difference in this elderly age group.

Methods

Twenty cadaveric spines from 45 to 83 years of age were used to obtain BMD using quantitated computed tomography (QCT). BMD was measured using a QCT. For C1, 8 regions were determined: anterior tubercle, bilateral anterior and medial lateral masses, bilateral posterior arches, and posterior tubercle. For C2, 7 regional BMDs were determined: top of odontoid, base of odontoid-body interface, mid body, bilateral lateral masses, anterior inferior body near the discs space, and the C2 spinous process.

Results

The BMD was greatest at the C1 anterior tubercle (564.4±175.8 mg/cm³) and C1 posterior ring (420.8±110.2 mg/cm³), and least at the anterior and medial lateral masses (262.8±59.5 mg/cm³, 316.9±72.6 mg/cm³). At C2 QCT BMD was greatest at the top of the dens (400.6±107.9 mg/cm³) decreasing down through the odontoid-C2 body junction (267.8±103.5 mg/cm³) and least in the mid C2 body 249.1±68.8 mg/cm³). The posterior arch of C1 and the spinous process of C2 had higher BMD's 420.8±110.2 mg/cm³ and 284.1±93.0 mg/cm³, respectively. A high correlation was observed between the BMD at the interface of the dens-vertebral body with the vertebral body with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.86. The BMD of the top of dens was significantly higher (p<.05) than all the regions in C2.

Conclusions

Regional and segmental BMD variations at C1 and C2 have clinical implications for surgical constructs in the elderly population. Given the higher BMDs of the C1 and C2 spinous process and posterior arches, consideration should be given to incorporate these areas using various C1-C2 wiring techniques. In the elderly, lateral masses particularly at C1 with lower BMD may result in potential screw loosening and nonunion in this age group. Old-school wiring techniques have a track record of efficacy and safety with less blood loss, reduced operative time, reduced X-ray exposure, and should be considered in the elderly as a primary stabilization technique or a belt-over suspenders approach based on regional variations in BMD in the elderly.

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.

Recommendations for Diagnosis and Treatment of Odontoid Fractures in Geriatric Patients

BACKGROUND

Odontoid fractures in geriatric patients represent an entity of increasing incidence with a high rate of morbidity and mortality. The optimal diagnostic and therapeutic management is being controversially discussed in the literature.

METHODS

In a consensus process and based on the current literature, the members of the working groups "Osteoporotic Fractures" and "Upper Cervical Spine" of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery (DGOU) defined recommendations for the diagnostics and treatment of odontoid fractures in geriatric patients.

RESULTS

For the diagnosis of odontoid fractures in symptomatic patients, computed tomography represents the gold standard, along with conventional radiographs. Magnetic resonance and dynamic imaging can be used as ancillary imaging modalities. With regard to fracture classification, the systems described by Anderson/D'Alonzo and by Eysel/Roosen have proved to be of value. A treatment algorithm was developed based on these classifications. Anderson/D'Alonzo type 1, type 3, and non-displaced type 2 fractures usually can be treated non-operatively. However, a close clinical and radiological follow-up is essential. In Anderson/D'Alonzo type 2 fractures, operative treatment is associated with better fracture healing. Displaced type 2 and type 3 fractures should be stabilized operatively. Type 2 fractures with suitable fracture patterns (Eysel/Roosen 2A/B) can be stabilized anteriorly. Posterior C I/II-stabilization procedures are well established and suitable for all fracture patterns.