• World Neurosurg · Nov 2018

    Review Multicenter Study Comparative Study

    C1-C2 Fusion Versus Occipito-Cervical Fusion for High Cervical Fractures: A Multi-Institutional Database Analysis and Review of the Literature.

    • Abhiraj D Bhimani, Ryan G Chiu, Darian R Esfahani, Akash S Patel, Steven Denyer, Jonathan G Hobbs, and Ankit I Mehta.
    • Department of Neurosurgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
    • World Neurosurg. 2018 Nov 1; 119: e459-e466.

    ObjectiveType II odontoid fractures of the axis (C2) account for more than 20% of all cervical fractures. If an odontoid screw is contraindicated, the treatment approach for type II C2 fractures typically involves C1-C2 posterior fusion or occipito-cervical (O-C) fusion, each of which has distinct advantages and disadvantages. In this study, postoperative outcomes of C1-C2 fusion and O-C fusion for high cervical fractures were compared.MethodsThe American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried to determine 30-day surgical outcomes of posterior C1-C2 fusion versus O-C fusion for adult patients with C2 fractures between 2005 and 2016. Demographics, operative factors, and postoperative events were analyzed, including returns to the operating room, readmission, and death.ResultsIn total, 165 patients were identified. A majority of the patients (142, 86.1%) had independent functional status, although 133 (80.6%) had an American Society of Anesthesiologists classification ranging from 3 to 5, representing poor preoperative health. A significantly greater proportion of O-C (9.1%) versus C1-C2 fusion (1.7%) returned to the operating room (odds ratio 6.465, confidence interval 1.079-38.719, P = 0.041). The length of operation approached statistical significance (P = 0.053) between the 2 groups, with O-C fusion group having a longer average length of operation (196.4 minutes) versus the C1-C2 group (164.0 minutes).ConclusionsThis study provides a snapshot of the risk profiles of C1-C2 and O-C fusion for C2 fracture, demonstrating a statistically higher risk of reoperation in O-C fusion versus C1-C2 fusion. Future randomized trials are needed to identify the preferred technique to improve patient outcomes.Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.