Fusion rates for odontoid fractures after treatment by anterior odontoid screw versus posterior C1–C2 arthrodesis: a meta-analysis
- 14 Downloads
For odontoid fractures, surgical treatment approaches including anterior odontoid screw fixation approach and the posterior C1–C2 arthrodesis approach are generally adopted in practice. However, the choice of different surgical procedures remains controversial. In addition to surgical technique, the fusion rate is an important factor contributing to the clinical efficacy. Therefore, this study was aimed to investigate the discrepancy in fusion rate between these two surgical approaches through synthesizing the currently available evidence on the topic.
A computerized search of Ovid, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library up to December 2017 for literature on the complication rate during odontoid fracture treatment was conducted. Risk ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) was pooled to assess fusion rates after surgical treatments, including anterior odontoid screw fixation approach or posterior C1–2 arthrodesis procedure, for patients with odontoid fractures.
Thirteen studies were enrolled in the meta-analysis. Results show that no significant difference was found in the overall fusion rate (RR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.90–1.01). There was no significant heterogeneity among the studies (p value = 0.60). As to age- and economic-level subgroups, there was no statistical evidence to suggest an association of the patient age and economy development level with the choice of surgical approach. However, it is shown that better fusion rates of patients (≥ 60 years) in developed countries received a better fusion rates after posterior fixation compared with anterior group using the fixed-effect model (RR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.79–0.98).
Elderly patients (≥ 60 years) underwent posterior C1–2 arthrodesis fixation shows higher fusion rates in developed countries comparing with patients who underwent anterior odontoid screw fixation. Overall, there is no significant discrepancy between these two surgical approaches. However, the conclusion should be verified by further study enrolling larger sample size.
KeywordsOdontoid fractures Anterior odontoid screw Posterior C1–2 arthrodesis Complication rate Meta-analysis
We thank the research team in the Orthopedics Department of Tian Jin 4th Center Hospital for their assistance with the study.
LB and CJ contribute equally to the paper. They together designed the research. LB analysed the data and prepared the typescript. CJ revised the manuscript. The other authors provided the subject data. Both two authors read and approved the final manuscript.
The authors declare that there is no funding support for this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
We declare that we have no financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that can inappropriately influence our work; there is no professional or other personal interest of any nature or kind in any product, service and/or company that could be construed as influencing the position presented in, or the review of, the manuscript entitled, “Fusion rates for odontoid fractures after treatment by anterior odontoid screw versus posterior C1–C2 arthrodesis:A meta-analysis”.
The study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Tian Jin 4th Center Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Consent to publish
All authors Li Baogui and Chen Juwen of this paper “Fusion rates for odontoid fractures after treatment by anterior odontoid screw versus posterior C1–C2 arthrodesis:A meta-analysis” consent to publish on BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders once it is accepted.
- 1.Chutkan NB, King AG, Harris MB (1997) Odontoid fractures: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 5(4):199Google Scholar
- 2.Maak TG, Grauer JN (2006) The contemporary treatment of odontoid injuries. Spine 31(11 Suppl):S53Google Scholar
- 3.Bohlman HH (1979) Acute fractures and dislocations of the cervical spine. An analysis of three hundred hospitalized patients and review of the literature. J Bone Jt Surg Am Vol 61(8):1119–1142Google Scholar
- 4.Clark CR (1985) Fractures of the dens. A multicenter study. J Bone Jt Surg Am Vol 67(9):1340–1348Google Scholar
- 5.Song KJ, Lee KB, Kim KN (2007) Treatment of odontoid fractures with single anterior screw fixation. J Clin Neurosci 14(9):824–830Google Scholar
- 6.Graziano G, Jaggers C, Lee M, Lynch W (1993) A comparative study of fixation techniques for type II fractures of the odontoid process. Spine 18(16):2383–2387Google Scholar
- 7.Lee SH, Sung JK (2006) Anterior odontoid fixation using a 4.5-mm Herbert screw: the first report of 20 consecutive cases with odontoid fracture. Surg Neurol 66(4):361Google Scholar
- 8.Hou Y, Yuan W, Wang X (2011) Clinical evaluation of anterior screw fixation for elderly patients with type II odontoid fractures. J Spinal Disord Tech 24(8):E75Google Scholar
- 9.Smith HE, Vaccaro AR, Maltenfort M, Albert TJ, Hilibrand AS, Anderson DG, Harrop J, Fehlings MG, Kopjar B, Brodke DS (2008) Trends in surgical management for type II odontoid fracture: 20 years of experience at a regional spinal cord injury center. Orthopedics 31(7):650–650Google Scholar
- 10.Ni B, Guo Q, Lu X, Xie N, Wang L, Guo X, Chen F (2015) Posterior reduction and temporary fixation for odontoid fracture-a salvage maneuver to anterior screw fixation. Spine 40(3):168–174Google Scholar
- 11.Grob D, Jeanneret B, Aebi M, Markwalder TM (1991) Atlanto-axial fusion with transarticular screw fixation. J Bone Jt Surg Br Vol 73(6):972–976Google Scholar
- 12.Elsaghir H, Böhm H (2000) Anderson type II fracture of the odontoid process: results of anterior screw fixation. J Spinal Disord 13(6):527–530Google Scholar
- 13.Ochoa G (2005) Surgical management of odontoid fractures. Inj Int J Care Inj 36(2):S54–S64Google Scholar
- 14.Polin RS, Szabo T, Bogaev CA, Replogle RE, Jane JA (1996) Nonoperative management of Types II and III odontoid fractures: the Philadelphia collar versus the halo vest. Neurosurgery 38(3):456–457Google Scholar
- 15.Shen Y, Miao J, Li C, Fang L, Cao S, Zhang M, Yan J, Kuang Y (2015) A meta-analysis of the fusion rate from surgical treatment for odontoid factures: anterior odontoid screw versus posterior C1-C2 arthrodesis. Eur Spine J 24(8):1649–1657Google Scholar
- 16.Sawarkar DP, Singh PK, Siddique SA, Agrawal D, Satyarthee GD, Gupta DK, Sinha S, Kale SS, Sharma BS (2015) Surgical management of odontoid fractures at level one trauma center: a single-center series of 142 cases. Neurol India 63(1):40–48Google Scholar
- 17.Wells GA, Shea BJ, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P (2014) The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of non-randomized studies in meta-analysis. Appl Eng Agric 18(6):págs. 727–734Google Scholar
- 18.Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21(11):1539Google Scholar
- 19.Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414):557–560Google Scholar
- 20.Sterne JAC, Egger M (2001) Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol 54(10):1046–1055Google Scholar
- 21.Andersson S, Rodrigues M, Olerud C (2000) Odontoid fractures: high complication rate associated with anterior screw fixation in the elderly. European spine journal: official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical. Spine Res Soc 9(1):56Google Scholar
- 22.Chiba K, Fujimura Y, Toyama Y, Fujii E, Nakanishi T, Hirabayashi K (1996) Treatment protocol for fractures of the odontoid process. J Spinal Disord 9(4):267Google Scholar
- 23.Fujii E, Kobayashi K, Hirabayashi K (1988) Treatment in fractures of the odontoid process. Spine 13(6):604–609Google Scholar
- 24.Kim SK, Shin JJ, Kim TH, Shin HS, Hwang YS, Park SK (2011) Clinical outcomes of halo-vest immobilization and surgical fusion of odontoid fractures. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 50(1):17–22Google Scholar
- 25.Konieczny MR, Gstrein A, Müller EJ (2012) Treatment algorithm for dens fractures: non-halo immobilization, anterior screw fixation, or posterior transarticular C1–C2 fixation. J Bone Jt Surg Am Vol 94(19):e144(141Google Scholar
- 26.Mashhadinezhad H, Samini F, Mashhadinezhad A, Birjandinejad A (2012) Clinical results of surgical management in type II odontoid fracture: a preliminary report. Turk Neurosurg 22(5):583–587Google Scholar
- 27.Platzer P, Thalhammer G, Oberleitner G, Schuster R, Vécsei V, Gaebler C (2007) Surgical treatment of dens fractures in elderly patients. J Bone Jt Surg Am Vol 89(8):1716–1722Google Scholar
- 28.Ziai W, Hurlbert R (2000) A six year review of odontoid fractures: the emerging role of surgical intervention. Can J Neurol Sci 27(4):297–301Google Scholar
- 29.Joaquim AF, Patel AA (2015) Surgical treatment of type II odontoid fractures: anterior odontoid screw fixation or posterior cervical instrumented fusion? Neurosurg Focus 38(4):E11Google Scholar
- 30.Fagin AM, Cipolle MD, Barraco RD, Eid S, Li PM, Pasquale MD (2010) Odontoid fractures in the elderly: should we operate? J Trauma 68(3):583Google Scholar
- 31.Guo Q, Zhang M, Wang L, Lu X, Guo X, Ni B (2015) Comparison of atlantoaxial rotation and functional outcomes of two non-fusion techniques in the treatment of Anderson-D’Alonzo type II odontoid fractures. Spine 41:1Google Scholar
- 32.Omeis I, Duggal N, Rubano J, Cerabona F, Abrahams J, Fink M, Das K (2009) Surgical treatment of C2 fractures in the elderly: a multicenter retrospective analysis. Spine J 22(2):91–95Google Scholar
- 33.Smith HE, Kerr SM, Maltenfort M, Chaudhry S, Norton R, Albert TJ, Harrop J, Hilibrand AS, Anderson DG, Kopjar B (2008) Early complications of surgical versus conservative treatment of isolated type II odontoid fractures in octogenarians: a retrospective cohort study. J Spinal Disord Tech 21(8):535–539Google Scholar
- 34.Platzer P, Thalhammer G, Sarahrudi K, Kovar F, Vekszler G, Vécsei V, Gaebler C (2007) Nonoperative management of odontoid fractures using a halothoracic vest. Neurosurgery 61(3):522–529Google Scholar
- 35.Th KC, Mirza SK, Jarell AD, Chapman JR, Shaffrey CI, Newell DW (2000) Type II odontoid fractures in the elderly: early failure of nonsurgical treatment. Neurosurg Focus 8(6):e7Google Scholar
- 36.Schoenfeld AJ, Bono CM, Reichmann WM, Warholic N, Wood KB, Losina E, Katz JN, Harris MB (2011) Type II odontoid fractures of the cervical spine: do treatment type and medical comorbidities affect mortality in elderly patients? Spine 36(11):879Google Scholar
- 37.Platzer P, Thalhammer G, Ostermann R, Wieland T, Vécsei V, Gaebler C (2007) Anterior screw fixation of odontoid fractures comparing younger and elderly patients. Spine 32(16):1714–1720Google Scholar
- 38.Aldrian S, Erhart J, Schuster R, Wernhart S, Domaszewski F, Ostermann R, Widhalm H, Platzer P (2012) Surgical vs nonoperative treatment of Hadley type IIA odontoid fractures. Neurosurgery 70(3):676Google Scholar
- 39.Chaudhary A, Drew B, Orr RD, Farrokhyar F (2010) Management of type II odontoid fractures in the geriatric population: outcome of treatment in a rigid cervical orthosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 23(5):317Google Scholar
- 40.Pepin JW, Bourne RB, Hawkins RJ (1985) Odontoid fractures, with special reference to the elderly patient. Clin Orthop Relat Res 193(193):178Google Scholar
- 41.Bednar DA, Parikh J, Hummel J (1995) Management of type II odontoid process fractures in geriatric patients; a prospective study of sequential cohorts with attention to survivorship. J Spinal Disord 8(2):166–169Google Scholar
- 42.Seybold EA, Bayley JC (1998) Functional outcome of surgically and conservatively managed dens fractures. Spine 23(17):1837–1845Google Scholar