A Comparison of different posterior arthrodesis techniques versus anterior dens screw for odontoid fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.3 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Pavlos Texakalidis, Stavros Matsoukas, Michael Cloney, Mykhaylo Krushelnytskyy, Kevin Swong, Najib El Tecle, Tyler Koski, Nader S Dahdaleh
{"title":"A Comparison of different posterior arthrodesis techniques versus anterior dens screw for odontoid fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Pavlos Texakalidis, Stavros Matsoukas, Michael Cloney, Mykhaylo Krushelnytskyy, Kevin Swong, Najib El Tecle, Tyler Koski, Nader S Dahdaleh","doi":"10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_42_25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Odontoid fractures are often managed surgically. The most common approaches are anterior dens screw (ADS) and posterior arthrodesis (PA), with the latter being associated with significantly higher fusion rates. PA techniques can include wiring, C1-C2 transarticular (TA) screws, and C1 lateral mass (LM)-C2 pars/pedicle screws. Most comparative studies group multiple PA techniques together when comparing PA versus ADS. Our objective was to systematically review the literature and identify studies that separately provide fusion rates of each different posterior C1-C2 arthrodesis (PA) technique utilized compared to ADS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A random effects meta-analysis was performed, and the <i>I<sup>2</sup></i> statistic was used to assess heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 15 studies comprising 685 patients (ADS: 377; wiring: 58; TA: 150; C1 LM-C2 pars/pedicle screws: 100). The average age of the patients ranged across the included studies between 22 and 82.4 years old. The mean last follow-up was >12 months in eight studies. Only two studies reported a follow-up period of <6 months. Most of the odontoid fractures were type II based on the Anderson-D'Alonzo classification. Use of C1 LM-C2 pars/pedicle screws was associated with significantly higher odds of fusion compared to ADS (C1 LM-C2 pars/pedicle: 97%; ADS: 87.2%; odds ratio [OR]: 3.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-11.29; <i>I<sup>2:</sup></i> 0%). TA screws were associated with significantly higher odds of fusion compared to ADS (TA: 98%; ADS: 87%; OR: 4.19; 95% CI: 1.67-10.47; <i>I<sup>2:</sup></i> 0%). There was no difference in the rate of fusion between wiring and ADS (wiring: 84.4%; ADS: 92.6%; OR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.08-1.40; <i>I<sup>2:</sup></i> 48.8%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>C1-C2 TA screws and C1 LM-C2 pars/pedicle screws are both associated with statistically significant higher rates of fusion compared to ADS for odontoid fractures. ADS showed higher rates of fusion compared to wiring, although this did not reach statistical significance.</p>","PeriodicalId":51721,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine","volume":"16 2","pages":"126-132"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12313035/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_42_25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Odontoid fractures are often managed surgically. The most common approaches are anterior dens screw (ADS) and posterior arthrodesis (PA), with the latter being associated with significantly higher fusion rates. PA techniques can include wiring, C1-C2 transarticular (TA) screws, and C1 lateral mass (LM)-C2 pars/pedicle screws. Most comparative studies group multiple PA techniques together when comparing PA versus ADS. Our objective was to systematically review the literature and identify studies that separately provide fusion rates of each different posterior C1-C2 arthrodesis (PA) technique utilized compared to ADS.

Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A random effects meta-analysis was performed, and the I2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity.

Results: In total, 15 studies comprising 685 patients (ADS: 377; wiring: 58; TA: 150; C1 LM-C2 pars/pedicle screws: 100). The average age of the patients ranged across the included studies between 22 and 82.4 years old. The mean last follow-up was >12 months in eight studies. Only two studies reported a follow-up period of <6 months. Most of the odontoid fractures were type II based on the Anderson-D'Alonzo classification. Use of C1 LM-C2 pars/pedicle screws was associated with significantly higher odds of fusion compared to ADS (C1 LM-C2 pars/pedicle: 97%; ADS: 87.2%; odds ratio [OR]: 3.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-11.29; I2: 0%). TA screws were associated with significantly higher odds of fusion compared to ADS (TA: 98%; ADS: 87%; OR: 4.19; 95% CI: 1.67-10.47; I2: 0%). There was no difference in the rate of fusion between wiring and ADS (wiring: 84.4%; ADS: 92.6%; OR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.08-1.40; I2: 48.8%).

Conclusions: C1-C2 TA screws and C1 LM-C2 pars/pedicle screws are both associated with statistically significant higher rates of fusion compared to ADS for odontoid fractures. ADS showed higher rates of fusion compared to wiring, although this did not reach statistical significance.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

不同后路关节融合术与前齿螺钉治疗齿状突骨折的比较:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景和目的:齿状突骨折通常采用手术治疗。最常见的入路是前牙髓螺钉(ADS)和后路关节融合术(PA),后者的融合率明显更高。PA技术可包括钢丝、C1-C2经关节螺钉(TA)和C1侧块螺钉(LM)-C2部/椎弓根螺钉。在比较PA与ADS时,大多数比较研究将多种PA技术组合在一起。我们的目的是系统地回顾文献,并确定分别提供与ADS相比使用的每种不同后路C1-C2关节融合术(PA)融合率的研究。方法:根据系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目进行系统文献综述。进行随机效应荟萃分析,采用I2统计量评估异质性。结果:共纳入15项研究,包括685例患者(ADS: 377;线路:58;助教:150;C1 LM-C2节/椎弓根螺钉:100)。在纳入的研究中,患者的平均年龄在22岁到82.4岁之间。在8项研究中,平均最后随访时间为12个月。只有两项研究报告随访期为2%。与ADS相比,TA螺钉的融合率明显更高(TA: 98%;广告:87%;OR: 4.19;95% ci: 1.67-10.47;I2: 0%)。钢丝与ADS的融合率无显著差异(钢丝:84.4%;广告:92.6%;OR: 0.34;95% ci: 0.08-1.40;I2: 48.8%)。结论:与ADS相比,C1- c2 TA螺钉和C1 LM-C2部/椎弓根螺钉治疗齿状突骨折的融合率均有统计学意义上的显著提高。与布线相比,ADS显示出更高的融合率,尽管这没有达到统计学意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
57
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信