Fernando Luiz Rolemberg Dantas , François Dantas , Karlo M. Pedro , Victor Kelles Tupy da Fonseca , Michael G. Fehlings
{"title":"齿状突骨折的管理通过进化的透镜分类方案:系统回顾与说明性的案例","authors":"Fernando Luiz Rolemberg Dantas , François Dantas , Karlo M. Pedro , Victor Kelles Tupy da Fonseca , Michael G. Fehlings","doi":"10.1016/j.bas.2025.104205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Odontoid fractures account for approximately 15% of all cervical spine fractures. Despite numerous classification systems, controversy persists regarding the ideal treatment of these fractures, especially in elderly and medically frail patients.</div></div><div><h3>Research question</h3><div>This article aims to provide a systematic review of odontoid fracture classifications and assess their clinical applicability.</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>A systematic literature review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases using the terms “odontoid”, “fracture”, and “classification”. Articles published between 1974 and 2024 were analyzed and those containing odontoid fracture classifications were included.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Four hundred and fifty-seven articles were identified, and 32 were selected for detailed investigation. Seven articles were selected after reviewing the full text, and four additional articles cited in the references were included, from which two were published before 1974. A total of eleven classification systems were found in the literature. The classifications were based on the position and direction of the fracture line, displacement, angulation, embryology, and odontoid anatomy. The AO Spine Classification System was among the more recent frameworks reviewed and analyzes the presence of ligamentous injury or translation.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion and conclusions</h3><div>Anderson and D'Alonzo, Roy-Camille, Grauer, and the AO Spine Classification System are the most commonly applied in clinical practice. However, existing systems lack specific considerations for osteoporosis and the medical frailty of elderly patients, who constitute a substantial portion of cases. Future classification systems should address these factors to better guide treatment for this population.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72443,"journal":{"name":"Brain & spine","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 104205"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The management of odontoid fractures through the lens of evolution in classification schemes: A systematic review with illustrative case examples\",\"authors\":\"Fernando Luiz Rolemberg Dantas , François Dantas , Karlo M. Pedro , Victor Kelles Tupy da Fonseca , Michael G. Fehlings\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bas.2025.104205\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Odontoid fractures account for approximately 15% of all cervical spine fractures. Despite numerous classification systems, controversy persists regarding the ideal treatment of these fractures, especially in elderly and medically frail patients.</div></div><div><h3>Research question</h3><div>This article aims to provide a systematic review of odontoid fracture classifications and assess their clinical applicability.</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>A systematic literature review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases using the terms “odontoid”, “fracture”, and “classification”. Articles published between 1974 and 2024 were analyzed and those containing odontoid fracture classifications were included.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Four hundred and fifty-seven articles were identified, and 32 were selected for detailed investigation. Seven articles were selected after reviewing the full text, and four additional articles cited in the references were included, from which two were published before 1974. A total of eleven classification systems were found in the literature. The classifications were based on the position and direction of the fracture line, displacement, angulation, embryology, and odontoid anatomy. The AO Spine Classification System was among the more recent frameworks reviewed and analyzes the presence of ligamentous injury or translation.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion and conclusions</h3><div>Anderson and D'Alonzo, Roy-Camille, Grauer, and the AO Spine Classification System are the most commonly applied in clinical practice. However, existing systems lack specific considerations for osteoporosis and the medical frailty of elderly patients, who constitute a substantial portion of cases. Future classification systems should address these factors to better guide treatment for this population.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72443,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brain & spine\",\"volume\":\"5 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104205\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brain & spine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772529425000244\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain & spine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772529425000244","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
齿状突骨折约占所有颈椎骨折的15%。尽管有许多分类系统,但关于这些骨折的理想治疗方法仍存在争议,特别是在老年人和身体虚弱的患者中。本文旨在对齿状突骨折的分类进行系统的综述,并评价其临床应用价值。材料与方法在PubMed、Embase和Cochrane数据库中使用“odontoid”、“fracture”和“classification”进行系统的文献综述。对1974年至2024年间发表的文章进行了分析,并纳入了包含齿状突骨折分类的文章。结果共鉴定出457篇,选取32篇进行详细调查。全文审定后选出7篇文章,并收录参考文献中引用的4篇文章,其中2篇发表于1974年以前。文献中共发现了11种分类系统。分类基于骨折线的位置和方向、移位、成角、胚胎学和齿状突解剖。AO脊柱分类系统是最近审查和分析韧带损伤或平移存在的框架之一。讨论与结论sanderson and D'Alonzo、Roy-Camille、Grauer和AO脊柱分类系统在临床应用最为广泛。然而,现有的系统缺乏对骨质疏松症和老年患者的医疗虚弱的具体考虑,他们构成了很大一部分的病例。未来的分类系统应解决这些因素,以更好地指导对这一人群的治疗。
The management of odontoid fractures through the lens of evolution in classification schemes: A systematic review with illustrative case examples
Introduction
Odontoid fractures account for approximately 15% of all cervical spine fractures. Despite numerous classification systems, controversy persists regarding the ideal treatment of these fractures, especially in elderly and medically frail patients.
Research question
This article aims to provide a systematic review of odontoid fracture classifications and assess their clinical applicability.
Material and methods
A systematic literature review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases using the terms “odontoid”, “fracture”, and “classification”. Articles published between 1974 and 2024 were analyzed and those containing odontoid fracture classifications were included.
Results
Four hundred and fifty-seven articles were identified, and 32 were selected for detailed investigation. Seven articles were selected after reviewing the full text, and four additional articles cited in the references were included, from which two were published before 1974. A total of eleven classification systems were found in the literature. The classifications were based on the position and direction of the fracture line, displacement, angulation, embryology, and odontoid anatomy. The AO Spine Classification System was among the more recent frameworks reviewed and analyzes the presence of ligamentous injury or translation.
Discussion and conclusions
Anderson and D'Alonzo, Roy-Camille, Grauer, and the AO Spine Classification System are the most commonly applied in clinical practice. However, existing systems lack specific considerations for osteoporosis and the medical frailty of elderly patients, who constitute a substantial portion of cases. Future classification systems should address these factors to better guide treatment for this population.