Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Surgery vs conservative treatment for type II and III odontoid fractures in a geriatric population

A meta-analysis

Fan, Lei MDa; Ou, Dingqiang MDb; Huang, Xuna MDc; Pang, Mao MDa; Chen, Xiu-Xing MDd; Yang, Bu MDa; Wang, Qi-You MDa,∗

Section Editor(s): Kim., Jin-Sung

doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000010281
Research Article: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Open

Background: It is unclear whether surgery or conservative treatment is more suitable for elderly patients with type II and type III odontoid fractures. We performed this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of surgical and conservative treatments for type II and type III odontoid fractures.

Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library in January 2017. Only articles comparing surgery with conservative treatment in elderly patients with type II and type III odontoid fractures were selected. After 2 authors independently assessed the retrieved studies, 18 articles were included in this meta-analysis, and the primary endpoints were the nonunion rate and mortality rate. The secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, complications, and the length of the hospital stay. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the modified Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Sensitivity analyses were performed for high-quality studies, and the publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot.

Results: Lower nonunion (odds ratio [OR]: 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.18–0.40, P < .05) and mortality rates (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.34–0.79, P < .05) confirmed the superiority of surgery in treating type II and type III fractures. The secondary outcomes differed. Patients in the surgery group felt more satisfied with the outcome (OR: 3.44, 95% CI: 1.19–9.95, P < .05), and the complications were similar in the 2 groups (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.78–1.68, P = .5), whereas patients in conservative groups spent less time in the hospital (OR: 5.10, 95% CI: 2.73–7.47, P < .05). The results of the subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis were similar to the original outcomes, and no obvious publication bias was observed in the funnel plot.

Conclusion: Most elderly (younger than 70 years) patients with type II or type III odontoid fractures should be considered candidates for surgical treatment, due to the higher union rate and lower mortality rate, while statistically significant differences were not observed in the population with an advanced age (older than 70 years). Therefore, the selection of the therapeutic approach for elderly patients with odontoid fractures requires further exploration. Simultaneously, based on our meta-analysis, a posterior arthrodesis treatment was significantly superior to the anterior odontoid screw treatment.

aDepartment of Spine Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University

bDepartment of Orthopaedics, The First People's Hospital of Shunde

cDepartment of Medical Research Center, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University

dState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China.

∗Correspondence: Qi-You Wang, and Bu Yang, Department of Spine Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, 600 Tianhe Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China (e-mail: wqiyou@163.com).

Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval, OR = odds ratio, RCT = randomized controlled trials, WMD = weighted mean difference.

How to cite this article: Fan L, Ou D, Huang X, Pang M, Chen XX, Yang B, Wang QY. Surgery vs conservative treatment for type II and III odontoid fractures in a geriatric population. Medicine. 2019;98:44(e10281).

LF, DO, and XH contributed equally to the work.

The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose.

the author(s) of this work have nothing to disclose.

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Derivatives License 4.0, which allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to the author. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0

Back to Top | Article Outline

1 Introduction

More than 60% of spinal injuries involve the cervical spine, and approximately 25% of cervical spine injuries affect the axis.[1] In the elderly, odontoid fractures are the most common cervical spine fractures.[2–7] Odontoid fractures are classified into 3 main categories (Fig. 1). Type I fractures at the tip of the odontoid are rare and usually stable, type II fractures at the base of the odontoid process are the most common and are inherently unstable, and type III fractures occur through the body of the odontoid process and can be unstable.[8,9] The optimal treatment for type II and type III geriatric odontoid fractures has been the topic of a substantial number of studies in recent years due to its predisposition toward displacement and nonunion. These adverse effects are observed in the elderly population, as unstable type II and type III odontoid fractures create a challenging physiologic problem for healing due to the combination of osteoporotic bone, a watershed area for the blood supply, and a high-strain location, among other problems. It is unclear whether conservative management (external stabilization) or surgical treatment is more suitable for treating unstable odontoid fractures; moreover, there is no consensus on the particular surgical method.

Figure 1

Figure 1

Surgical methods are classified into 2 main groups according to the approach. The posterior approach includes posterior wire/cable bone techniques and rigid segmental techniques (C1-C2 transarticular screws and segmental fixation into the laminae, pars, or pedicles of the axis and lateral mass screw fixation into the atlas).[10] A surgical intervention results in a higher union rate. However, the condition of the patient may deteriorate after surgery. In particular, a surgical intervention poses significant risks to the very old population (>80 years of age).[11] On the contray, conservative treatment is also divided into many groups, and the most common treatment is the “Halo-Vest.” Surgeons and patients both consider that conservative treatment decreases the hospital cost, the occurrence of complications, and relevant surgical risks. Nevertheless, many studies have revealed a lower union rate and higher mortality rate for nonsurgical methods. In addition, many patients complain about this treatment due to the long period of bed rest and the deterioration of the cervical spine anatomy. Therefore, the identification of the proper balance between fracture healing and treatment complications is difficult. In older patients, the achievement of this balance is even more challenging.[12]

Therefore, the objective of this meta-analysis is to summarize and compare the outcomes of surgical and conservative treatments for type II and type III odontoid fractures in the elderly, focusing primarily on the nonunion rate and mortality rate, and secondarily on patient satisfaction, complications, and the hospital stay.

Back to Top | Article Outline

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Ethics statement

Basic information was collected from all patients. Written informed consent was not obtained for this meta-analysis and patient information was anonymized and deidentified prior to analysis. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board and Ethics Committee of the Third Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University.

Back to Top | Article Outline

2.2 Search strategy

A literature search of PubMed (1952–September 2016), Embase (1952–September 2016), Web of Science (1952–September 2016), and Cochrane Library (1952–September 2016) was performed in January 2017 without restrictions regarding the regions and publication types. Keywords included spinal stenosis, Odontoid fractures (OR Axis fracture OR cervical spine fracture OR Subaxial Cervical Pedicle Fracture OR dens fracture OR second cervical vertebra fracture OR C2 Fracture) AND Philadelphia type collar (OR SOMI brace OR Halo-Vest OR conservative OR Nonsurgical) AND Surgical (OR anterior screw fixation OR posterior C1/C2 fusion OR posterior C1-C2 arthrodesis OR fusion). In addition, the references of the selected articles were all manually examined to also identify additional potentially related studies.

Back to Top | Article Outline

2.3 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The articles including in this meta-analysis were required to meet the following criteria: publication of any type, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), retrospective studies comparing the outcomes of the surgical and nonsurgical treatments for type II or type III odontoid fractures; and a geriatric population of the included patients. Studies were excluded if the studies were reviews, meta-analyses or meeting abstracts. When multiple reports describing the same sample were published, the most recent or complete report was used.

Back to Top | Article Outline

2.4 Data extraction

Data were independently extracted from these selected articles by 2 of the authors who were both blinded to the authors, institutions, and the journals of each article. Each discrepancy was resolved by the senior author. The extracted information included the name of the 1st author, year of publication, the evidence level, number of patients, mean age of included patients, the type of odontoid fractures, follow-up, and the surgical methods.

Back to Top | Article Outline

2.5 Interventions and outcome

The therapeutic efficacy of surgical therapy for elderly patients with type II and type III odontoid fractures was compared with conservative treatment. The outcomes were divided into primary (including nonunion rate and mortality rate) and secondary (including patient satisfaction, complications, and the length of the hospital stay) outcomes.

Back to Top | Article Outline

2.6 Assessment of the quality of the selected articles

The methodologic quality of cohort and case–control studies was assessed using the modified Newcastle–Ottawa scale, which consists of 3 factors: patient selection, comparability of the study groups, and assessment of outcomes.[13,14] The comparability of the study populations was awarded 3 stars based on 6 indexes describing the basic characteristics of patients in the 2 treatment groups. Two main matching indexes, translation and angulation of fracture, were awarded 1 star each. One star was awarded to the remaining 4 characteristics. The total score was 9 points. We defined these articles that achieved scores >6 points as moderate and high-quality publications.

Back to Top | Article Outline

2.7 Statistical analysis

Relevant data were extracted from the included studies and input into Cochrane RevMan 5.1 software for the meta-analysis. Continuous outcomes are reported as weighted mean differences (WMDs) and respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Dichotomous outcomes are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. Statistical significance was set to P < .05 to summarize the findings across the trials.[14–17] Heterogeneity between different studies was evaluated using the I2 statistic that describes the percentage of variation among studies due to heterogeneity rather than chance. Both fixed and random effects models were applied to the collected dataset and the final choice between the 2 models was guided by the I2 statistic for heterogeneity. The random-effects model was used if heterogeneity existed (I2 > 50%), otherwise, the fixed-effects model was applied.[14] Sensitivity analyses were performed for high-quality studies. Funnel plots were constructed to screen for potential publication bias.[18] We performed 3 main subgroup analyses. The purpose of the subgroup analyses was to explore the sources of heterogeneity and compare the clinical effects between different surgical approaches and different age groups. Moreover, type II odontoid fractures were also discussed individually, because they are the most frequent fracture type occurring in the geriatric population.

Back to Top | Article Outline

3 Results

3.1 Search result

A literature search retrieved 1630 potentially relevant articles from the 4 databases (467 articles from PubMed, 543 articles from Web of Science, 7 articles from Cochrane Library, and 613 articles from Embase). After 2 reviewers independently browsed the titles and abstracts of these studies, the full articles of 75 studies were reviewed. After excluding 57 articles that did not meet our criteria, 18 articles analyzing 1084 geriatric patients were included in this meta-analysis (Fig. 2). The characteristics of these selected articles are presented in Table 1, and the risk of bias of each included study is described in detail in Table 2.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Table 1

Table 1

Table 2

Table 2

Back to Top | Article Outline

3.2 Results of the meta-analysis

3.2.1 Primary outcomes

Fifteen articles reported the nonunion rate (Table 3).[10,19–32] A significantly higher rate was observed in the conservative treatment group (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.18–0.40, P < .05). Furthermore, heterogeneity was very low (χ2 = 16.89, df = 14, I2 = 17%, P = .26). The mortality rate was described by 11 studies.[19–21,23,25,27,29,30,32–34] Compared with surgical treatment, patients receiving conservative treatment had a higher mortality rate (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.34–0.79, P < .05). Heterogeneity was still low (χ2 = 13.04, df = 10, I2 = 23%, P = .22).

Table 3

Table 3

Back to Top | Article Outline

3.2.2 Secondary outcomes

Patient satisfaction was reported by 4 articles.[23,24,29,31] Patients in the operative group were much more satisfied with the outcomes (OR: 3.44, 95% CI: 1.19–9.95, P < .05). Almost no heterogeneity was observed (χ2 = 1.8, df = 3, I2 = 0%, P = .61).

Eight articles including 567 patients did not reveal significant differences in complications between the 2 groups (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.78–1.68, P = .5).[19,23,27–30,33,34] The heterogeneity was slightly higher, whereas I2 was <50% (χ2 = 13.58, df = 7, I2 = 48%, P = .06).

The hospital stay was evaluated by 4 studies including 204 patients.[22,27,32,34] Patients in the operative group had a much longer stay in the hospital (OR: 5.10, 95% CI: 2.73–7.47, P < .05). Meanwhile, almost no heterogeneity was observed (χ2 = 2.11, df = 3, I2 = 0%, P = .55).

Back to Top | Article Outline

3.3 Subgroup analysis

We performed subgroup analyses to compare primary outcomes among conservative treatment, anterior fixation, and posterior fusion. Overall, the nonunion rate in the subgroup analysis was similar to the rate observed in the original analysis (Fig. 3). However, in the subgroup analysis, the nonunion rate was not significantly different between the conservative treatment and anterior screw fixation groups. In contrast, the outcomes were significantly different when both posterior interventions were compared with conservative treatment. However, the mortality rate differed from the original outcomes (Fig. 4). No significance differences were observed in the subgroup analyses or the original analysis.

Figure 3

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 4

We also divided patients into groups according to age and compare the 2 therapeutic strategies between subgroups. As shown in Figures 5 and 6, the total nonunion rate and mortality rate were still better in the surgery groups. However, when we divided patients into 3 subgroups according to age, the same differences in the nonunion rate and mortality rate were only observed in patients aged <70 years. Mortality and nonunion rates were not significantly different in octogenarians.

Figure 5

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 6

The main complications, including neurologic deficits, cardiopulmonary complications, thrombotic diseases, severe infections, and a loss of reduction, were subjected to subgroup analyses. As shown in Figure 7, significant differences were not observed in the total complications or each main complication. However, the heterogeneity decreased from 48% to 0%, indicating that the type of complication was the main source of heterogeneity. When we compared surgery with conservative treatment in patients with type II odontoid fractures, both primary outcomes were similar to the results of the original analysis (Fig. 8A, B).

Figure 7

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 8

Back to Top | Article Outline

3.4 Sensitivity analysis and publication bias

Fourteen moderate and high-quality retrospective articles, which were evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale, were analyzed to identify any differences compared with the original outcomes (Table 4). The results were similar to the original outcomes. In addition, with the exception of complications, the heterogeneity of the other indicators was generally lower.

Table 4

Table 4

Publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot that contains 15 studies describing the nonunion rate. All articles were within the 95% CI and the distribution was symmetrical, indicating a lack of obvious publication bias (Fig. 9).

Figure 9

Figure 9

Back to Top | Article Outline

4 Discussion

We searched 4 main databases to identify as many articles that met our criteria as possible. Eighteen studies were selected from 1630 potential articles by 2 authors. The data in which we were interested were the nonunion rate, mortality rate, complications, patient satisfaction, and the hospital stay, which were divided into primary and secondary outcomes. Regarding the primary outcomes, the nonunion rate was significantly lower in the operative group, consistent with the report by Di Paolo et al showing that patients undergoing surgery had a higher rate of fusion (91.6% vs 46.6%, statistically significant: P < .05). Moreover, the bone healing periods were also shorter (17 weeks compared to 21 weeks) in patients who received operative treatment.[10] Meanwhile, a statistically significant difference in mortality rates was observed, as the operative cohort had an overall lower mortality rate than the nonoperative group. First, an advanced age has been clearly defined as a risk factor that increases mortality in elderly patients after odontoid fractures. Furthermore, a low baseline physiologic reserve, poor rehabilitation potential, and the presence of medical comorbidities all increase the mortality rate in elderly patients after odontoid fracture.[33] The lower percentage of surviving patients who received conservative treatment may be attributed to an increased risk of cardiopulmonary complications, including pneumonia and cardiac arrest, resulting in a prolonged bed rest. Secondary outcomes included complications, patient satisfaction, and hospital stay. A significant difference in total complications was not observed. Four articles all reported that patient satisfaction was quite comparable between the operative group and patients receiving conservative treatment. However, patients in the conservative treatment group were discharged from the hospital earlier than patients who underwent surgery.

The purpose of the subgroup analysis was to explore the sources of heterogeneity and compare the clinical effects between different surgical approaches and different age groups. The total outcome of the nonunion rate in the subgroups was similar to the original analysis. Regarding the posterior C1-C2 fusion and posterior transarticular screw fixation, the fusion rates were both significantly higher than nonoperative treatment. The subgroup analysis of the mortality rate produced different results from the original analysis, which did not reveal a significant difference between the 2 groups. The discrepancy may be due to the use of a more conservative random-effects model for studies with heterogeneity >50%. We subdivided the patients according to age and compared the 2 therapeutic strategies in every subgroup. The same differences in the nonunion rate and mortality rate were only observed in patients aged <70 years. Mortality and nonunion rates were not significantly different in octogenarians. After excluding 3 articles that did not report the patients’ ages, most articles (9) included patients aged <70 years. These data support the findings of Harris et al, who reported a high mortality in this population (older than 75 years of age), regardless of the treatment type.[35] Advanced age has been clearly defined as a risk factor that increases mortality in elderly patients after odontoid fractures. A low baseline physiologic reserve, poor rehabilitation potential, and the presence of medical comorbidities all increase mortality in elderly patients after odontoid fractures. The 5 main complications, neurologic deficits, cardiopulmonary complications, thrombotic diseases, severe infections, and a loss of reduction, were also subjected to subgroup analyses. Although a tendency toward a higher proportion of subjects with any complication was observed in the nonsurgically treated cohort, this difference was not significant. Although the rates of thrombotic diseases and severe infections were approximately the same, other common complications, including neurologic deficits, cardiopulmonary complications, and loss of reduction, were more likely to occur in the nonsurgical group. However, each main complication was not significantly different between patients receiving the 2 interventions. Simultaneously, the heterogeneity decreased from 48% to 0%, indicating that the type of complication was the main source of heterogeneity.

In geriatric populations, type II odontoid fractures were the predominant fracture identified (95.7%) among all axis fractures.[30] Therefore, we compared the primary outcomes between surgical and conservative treatments in patients with type II odontoid fractures. The nonunion rate and the mortality rate in the subgroup analyses were similar to the original outcomes. The fusion rate was higher and the mortality rate was lower in operative groups, and the outcomes were both significantly different. In addition, the heterogeneity was still very low.

All 18 included studies were assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale, and 14 moderate and high-quality articles had scores ranging from 6 to 7 points, whereas the other 4 low-quality studies had scores of 4 points. Overall, the study quality was relatively high. Notably, the studies included in the meta-analysis were graded 2B, which may have avoidable selection bias, measurement bias, and performance bias. The sensitivity analysis was performed on moderate and high-quality studies with comparable patient characteristics, particularly the stability of fractures. Fractures were classified as stable or unstable according to previously described criteria: fractures with an initial displacement of <5 mm and initial angulation of <11° on the computed tomography scans.[21] We awarded 2 main matching indexes, the translation and angulation of fracture, a score of 1 point each. Then, 1 point was awarded to the combination of the remaining 4 characteristics: age, type, spinal cord injury, and comorbidity. The outcomes of the sensitivity analysis were all similar to the original results, and except for the complications, the heterogeneity of other indexes generally decreased.

However, this meta-analysis has several potential limitations. First and most importantly, the articles included in this meta-analysis were all retrospective cohort studies. Due to the characteristics of odontoid fractures and surgical procedures, most of the treatments were provided in emergent circumstances. The limited number and poor quality of the included studies limits the strength of the results reported in this meta-analysis, although the quality of most studies was high. Therefore, additional RCTs are required in this field. Furthermore, type II and type III fractures were analyzed as 1 group and only type II odontoid fractures were analyzed individually. However, an evident type II fracture is more frequently treated with surgery, whereas an evident type III fracture is most frequently treated conservatively. This difference in the treatment pattern may have flattened the findings. We chose this approach because the differentiation of these types of fractures is often difficult. Therefore, more articles reporting the therapeutic strategy for unstable type III axis fractures in the elderly are needed.

Back to Top | Article Outline

5 Conclusion

In conclusion, most elderly (younger than 70 years old) patients with type II or type III dens fractures who are healthy enough to receive general anesthesia should be considered candidates for surgical treatment, due to the higher union rate and lower mortality rate. However, the same statistically significant difference was not observed in the older age population (older than 70 years old). Therefore, further studies are needed to determine the therapeutic approach for patients with an advanced age presenting with odontoid fractures. Based on the findings of our meta-analysis, posterior arthrodesis treatment is significantly superior to the anterior odontoid screw treatment.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Lei Fan.

Data curation: Dingqiang Ou, Xuna Huang.

Formal analysis: Mao Pang.

Investigation: Xiuxing Chen.

Funding acquisition: Bu Yang, Qiyou Wang.

Qiyou Wang orcid: 0000-0001-8817-5291.

Back to Top | Article Outline

References

[1]. Ersmark H, Lowenhielm P. Factors influencing the outcome of cervical spine injuries. J Trauma 1988;28:407–10.
[2]. Harrop JS, Hart R, Anderson PA. Optimal treatment for odontoid fractures in the elderly. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:S219–27.
[3]. Henaux PL, Cueff F, Diabira S, et al. Anterior screw fixation of type IIB odontoid fractures in octogenarians. Eur Spine J 2012;21:335–9.
[4]. Hsu WK, Anderson PA. Odontoid fractures: update on management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2010;18:383–94.
[5]. Koech F, Ackland HM, Varma DK, et al. Nonoperative management of type II odontoid fractures in the elderly. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33:2881–6.
[6]. Osti M, Philipp H, Meusburger B, et al. Analysis of failure following anterior screw fixation of type II odontoid fractures in geriatric patients. Eur Spine J 2011;20:1915–20.
[7]. Tashjian RZ, Majercik S, Biffl WL, et al. Halo-vest immobilization increases early morbidity and mortality in elderly odontoid fractures. J Trauma 2006;60:199–203.
[8]. Rizvi SAM, Fredø HL, Lied B, et al. Surgical management of acute odontoid fractures: Surgery-related complications and long-term outcomes in a consecutive series of 97 patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2012;72:682–90.
[9]. White AP, Hashimoto R, Norvell DC, et al. Morbidity and mortality related to odontoid fracture surgery in the elderly population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:S146–57.
[10]. Di Paolo A, Piccirilli M, Pescatori L, et al. Single institute experience on 108 consecutive cases of type II odontoid fractures: surgery versus conservative treatment. Turk Neurosurg 2014;24:891–6.
[11]. Huybregts JGJ, Jacobs WCH, Vleggeert-Lankamp CLAM. The optimal treatment of type II and III odontoid fractures in the elderly: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 2013;22:1–3.
[12]. Huybregts JGJ, Jacobs WCH, Peul WC, et al. Rationale and design of the INNOVATE Trial: an international cooperative study on surgical versus conservative treatment for odontoid fractures in the elderly. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2014;15:7.
[13]. Ryang YM, Török E, Janssen I, et al. Early morbidity and mortality in 50 very elderly patients after posterior atlantoaxial fusion for traumatic odontoid fractures. World Neurosurg 2016;87:381–91.
[14]. JP H., Deeks JJ. Selecting studies and collecting data. In Higgins JP, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available at: www.handbook.cochrane.org. Accessed June 1, 2013
[15]. Jiang J, Yang CH, Lin Q, et al. Does arthroplasty provide better outcomes than internal fixation at mid- and long-term followup? A meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015;473:2672–9.
[16]. Wang H, Li C, Zhang Y, et al. The influence of inpatient comprehensive geriatric care on elderly patients with hip fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015;8:19815–30.
[17]. Wang H, Wang H, Sribastav SS, et al. Comparison of pullout strength of the thoracic pedicle screw between intrapedicular and extrapedicular technique: a meta-analysis and literature review. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015;8:22237–45.
[18]. Zuo D, Jin C, Shan M, et al. A comparison of general versus regional anesthesia for hip fracture surgery: a meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015;8:20295–301.
[19]. Vaccaro AR, Kepler CK, Kopjar B, et al. Functional and quality-of-life outcomes in geriatric patients with type-ii dens fracture. J Bone Joint Surg 2013;95:729–35.
[20]. Scheyerer MJ, Zimmermann SM, Simmen H-P, et al. Treatment modality in type II odontoid fractures defines the outcome in elderly patients. BMC Surg 2013;13:54.
[21]. Konieczny MR, Gstrein A, Müller EJ. Treatment algorithm for dens fractures: Non-halo immobilization, anterior screw fixation, or posterior transarticular C1-C2 fixation. J Bone Joint Surg 2012;94:e144.141–6.
[22]. Reinhold M, Bellabarba C, Bransford R, et al. Radiographic analysis of type II odontoid fractures in a geriatric patient population: description and pathomechanism of the “Geier”-deformity. Eur Spine J 2011;20:1928–39.
[23]. Aldrian S, Erhart J, Schuster R, et al. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment of Hadley type IIA odontoid fractures. Neurosurgery 2012;70:676–82.
[24]. Kim SK, Shin JJ, Kim TH, et al. Clinical outcomes of halo-vest immobilization and surgical fusion of odontoid fractures. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2011;50:17–22.
[25]. Chaudhary A, Drew B, Orr RD, et al. Management of type II odontoid fractures in the geriatric population: outcome of treatment in a rigid cervical orthosis. J Spinal Disord Tech 2010;23:317–20.
[26]. Shetty A, Kini AR, Prabhu J. Odontoid fractures: a retrospective analysis of 53 cases. Indian J Orthop 2009;43:352–60.
[27]. Kuntz Ct, Mirza SK, Jarell AD, et al. Type II odontoid fractures in the elderly: early failure of nonsurgical treatment. Neurosurg Focus 2000;8:e7–17.
[28]. Andersson S, Rodrigues M, Olerud C. Odontoid fractures: high complication rate associated with anterior screw fixation in the elderly. Eur Spine J 2000;9:56–60.
[29]. Ziai WC, Hurlbert RJ. A six year review of odontoid fractures: the emerging role of surgical intervention. Can J Neurolog Sci 2000;27:297–301.
[30]. Muller EJ, Wick M, Russe O, et al. Management of odontoid fractures in the elderly. Eur Spine J 1999;8:360–5.
[31]. Seybold EA, Bayley JC. Functional outcome of surgically and conservatively managed dens fractures. Spine 1998;23:1837–46.
[32]. Hanigan WC, Powell FC, Elwood PW, et al. Odontoid fractures in elderly patients. J Neurosurg 1993;78:32–5.
[33]. Woods BI, Hohl JB, Braly B, et al. Mortality in elderly patients following operative and nonoperative management of odontoid fractures. J Spinal Disord Tech 2014;27:321–6.
[34]. Smith HE, Kerr SM, Maltenfort M, et al. Early complications of surgical versus conservative treatment of isolated type II odontoid fractures in octogenarians: a retrospective cohort study. J Spinal Disord Tech 2008;21:535–9.
[35]. Harris MB, Reichmann WM, Bono CM, et al. Mortality in elderly patients after cervical spine fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010;92:567–74.
Keywords:

conservative; meta-analysis; operative; type II or type III odontoid fracture

Copyright © 2019 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.