Monoaxial Screws Versus Polyaxial Screws Osteosynthesis for Unstable Atlas Fractures: A Retrospective, Comparative Study With a Minimum Follow-Up of 3 years

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to compare the radiological parameters, clinical outcomes, and long-term effects of the posterior osteosynthesis with polyaxial screw-rod system and the monoaxial screw-rod system in the treatment of unstable atlas fractures.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 33 patients with posterior ORIF for unstable atlas fractures in our hospital from August 2013 to June 2020, with a minimum of 3 years of follow-up. Polyaxial screws (group A) were used in 12 patients and monoaxial screws (group B) in 21 patients. Perioperative data, radiological parameters, and clinical outcomes were collected and compared between the 2 surgical approaches.

RESULTS

The operative time, blood loss, time of screw-rod system placement, and hospital stay were significantly lower in group A than in group B. At the last follow-up, the visual analog scale (VAS) score and anterior arch reduction rate of the atlas in group A were lower than those in group B, while the lateral mass displacement (LMD) in group A was higher than that in group B. There was no significant difference between Group A and Group B in terms of the anterior atlantodental interval (AADI), posterior arch reduction rate of the atlas, range of motion (ROM), and neck disability index (NDI).

CONCLUSIONS

Monoaxial screws can achieve better reduction results for unstable atlas fractures, especially for the anterior arch of atlas. However, the surgical operation of monoaxial screws is more complicated than that of polyaxial screws and has more complications. Appropriate implants should be selected for the treatment of unstable atlas fractures based on the type of atlas fracture, the experience of surgeons, and the demands of patients.