Management of C2 odontoid peg fragility fractures - A UK survey of spinal surgeons

Unintended consequences of using collars with occipital extensions in neck support - Snapshot assessment at the largest tertiary spinal referral centre in the UK

INTRODUCTION

Upper cervical spine fractures are commonplace in the elderly following low energy trauma. These injuries carry high mortality rates, similar to patients sustaining hip fractures. A key aspect affecting clinical outcome is effective management in the first 12 weeks following injury. This study aims to assess the understanding of healthcare staff that may be required to care for such patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A survey was carried out over a single day at the UK's largest Spine Specialist referral centre (Salford Royal Foundation Trust, SRFT) assessing the understanding of healthcare staff of the term, 'Collar with occipital extension', by asking staff to identify the safe position of the neck when looking at clinical images of a model in a collar in various different neck positions. The participants demographics were then taken, including profession, grade, spinal/post graduate experience, if English is their first language and their understanding of the term 'Collar with occipital extension'.

RESULTS

102 participants were interviewed and the results showed almost half (45.1%) of participants selecting an incorrect hyperextended neck to be a safe position for conservative treatment and only 37.3% selecting the neutral position as satisfactory. The only positive predictors identified for those selective the neutral safe cervical spine alignment was if participants had >5 years of previous spinal experience (p = 0.0006) or if they understood the term 'Collar with occipital extension' to be describing the collar component (p = 0.000013) and not neck position.

CONCLUSION

Management of spinal injuries are classically poorly managed in non-spinal centres, possibly due to the lack of training and understanding within the spinal speciality. This study shows the importance of clearly communicating with referring hospitals exactly how to conservatively manage patients with high cervical injuries to best improve clinical outcome.

Geriatric Odontoid Fractures: Treatment Algorithms of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma Based on Expert Consensus and a Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review/expert consensus.

OBJECTIVES

Fractures of the axis represent the most frequent injury of the spine in elderly patients. Both, operative and non-operative treatment are associated with a high rate of complications and mortality. The aim of this article was to summarize the current literature on the management of odontoid fractures in geriatric patients and to weigh it based on an expert consensus process.

METHODS

In a joint consensus process, members of the Spine Section of the German Orthopaedic and Trauma Society (DGOU) aimed to formulate recommendations for the diagnostic workup and treatment of odontoid fractures in geriatric patients. Based on the previously published recommendations, this article is an updated version with incorporating a systematic review of the recent literature.

RESULTS

Based on the new data available, the recommendations established in the initial consensus process were adapted.

CONCLUSIONS

Computed tomography represents the diagnostic standard for patients with suspected injuries of the upper cervical spine. Anderson/D'Alonzo odontoid fractures type 1, non-displaced type 2, and type 3 can be treated conservatively. Even non-unions do not necessarily result in poor clinical outcome. In Anderson/D'Alonzo type 2 fractures, surgical therapy offers the advantage of relatively safe osseous healing with no increased complication rate even in elderly patients and can thus be recommended. In very high aged patients, however, a case-by-case decision should be made. When surgical stabilization of osteoporotic odontoid fractures is indicated, posterior techniques are biomechanically advantageous and can be considered the standard.