Combined Odontoid (C2) and Atlas (C1) Fractures in Geriatric Patients: A Systematic Review and Treatment Recommendation

Study DesignSystematic review.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to conduct a systematic overview of the pathogenesis and the treatment options of combined odontoid and atlas fractures in geriatric patients.MethodsThis review is based on articles retrieved by a systematic search in the PubMed and Web of Science databases for articles published until February 2021 dealing with combination fractures of C1 and C2 in geriatric patients.ResultsAltogether, 438 articles were retrieved from the literature search. A total of 430 articles were excluded. The remaining eight original articles were included in this systematic review depicting the topics pathogenesis, non-operative treatment, posterior approach, and anterior approach. The overall level of evidence of the studies is low.ConclusionCombined odontoid and atlas fractures in the geriatric population are commonly caused by simple falls and seem to be associated with atlanto-odontoid osteoarthritis. Non-operative treatment with a cervical orthosis is a feasible treatment option in the majority of patients with stable C2 fractures. In case of surgery posterior C1 and C 2 stabilization and anterior triple or quadruple screw fixation are possible techniques. Some patients may also deserve an occipito-cervical fusion. A possible treatment algorithm is proposed

Treatment and Outcome of Osteoporotic Thoracolumbar Vertebral Fractures With Anterior or Posterior Tension Band Failure (OF 5): Short-Term Results From the Prospective EOFTT Multicenter Study.

STUDY DESIGN Subgroup analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE To analyse surgical strategies applied to osteoporotic thoracolumbar osteoporotic fracture (OF) 5 injuries with anterior or posterior tension band failure and to assess related complications and clinical outcome. METHODS A multicenter prospective cohort study (EOFTT) was conducted at 17 spine centers including 518 consecutive patients who were treated for an osteoporotic vertebral fracture (OVF). For the present study, only patients with OF 5 fractures were analysed. Outcome parameters were complications, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODI), Timed Up & Go test (TUG), EQ-5D 5L, and Barthel Index. RESULTS In total, 19 patients (78 ± 7 years, 13 female) were analysed. Operative treatment consisted of long-segment posterior instrumentation in 9 cases and short-segment posterior instrumentation in 10 cases. Pedicle screws were augmented in 68 %, augmentation of the fractured vertebra was performed in 42%, and additional anterior reconstruction was done in 21 %. Two patients (11 %) received short-segment posterior instrumentation without either anterior reconstruction or cement-augmentation of the fractured vertebra. No surgical or major complications occurred, but general postoperative complications were observed in 45%. At a follow-up of mean 20 ± 10 weeks (range, 12 to 48 weeks), patients showed significant improvements in all functional outcome parameters. CONCLUSIONS In this analysis of patients with type OF 5 fractures, surgical stabilization was the treatment of choice and lead to significant short-term improvement in terms of functional outcome and quality of life despite a high general complication rate

Treatment and Outcome of Osteoporotic Thoracolumbar Vertebral Body Fractures With Deformation of Both Endplates With or Without Posterior Wall Involvement (OF 4): Short-Term Results from the Prospective EOFTT Multicenter Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To analyse therapeutical strategies applied to osteoporotic thoracolumbar OF 4 injuries, to assess related complications and clinical outcome. METHODS: A multicenter prospective cohort study (EOFTT) including 518 consecutive patients who were treated for an Osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (OVCF). For the present study, only patients with OF 4 fractures were analysed. Outcome parameters were complications, Visual Analogue Scale, Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, Timed Up & Go test, EQ-5D 5L, and Barthel Index after a minimum follow-up of 6 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 152 (29%) patients presented with OF 4 fractures with a mean age of 76 years (range 41-97). The most common treatment was short-segment posterior stabilization (51%; hybrid stabilization in 36%). Mean follow up was 208 days (±131 days), mean ODI was 30 ± 21. Dorsoventral stabilized patients were younger compared to the other groups (P .602, Barthel: P > .252, EQ-5D 5L index value: P > .610, VAS-EQ-5D 5L: P = 1.000). The inpatient complication rate was 8% after conservative and 16% after surgical treatment. During follow-up period 14% of conservatively treated patients and 3% of surgical treated patients experienced neurological deficits. CONCLUSIONS: Conservative therapy of OF 4 injuries seems to be viable option in patients with only moderate symptoms. Hybrid stabilization was the dominant treatment strategy leading to promising clinical short-term results. Stand-alone cement augmentation seems to be a valid alternative in selected cases

Clinical Evaluation of the Osteoporotic Fracture Treatment Score (OF-Score): Results of the Evaluation of the Osteoporotic Fracture Classification, Treatment Score and Therapy Recommendations (EOFTT) Study.

STUDY DESIGN Multicenter prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE The study aims to validate the recently developed OF score for treatment decisions in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF). METHODS This is a prospective multicenter cohort study (EOFTT) in 17 spine centers. All consecutive patients with OVCF were included. The decision for conservative or surgical therapy was made by the treating physician independent of the OF score recommendation. Final decisions were compared to the recommendations given by the OF score. Outcome parameters were complications, Visual Analogue Scale, Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, Timed Up & Go test, EQ-5D 5 L, and Barthel Index. RESULTS In total, 518 patients (75.3% female, age 75 ± 10) years were included. 344 (66%) patients received surgical treatment. 71% of patients were treated following the score recommendations. For an OF score cut-off value of 6.5, the sensitivity and specificity to predict actual treatment were 60% and 68% (AUC .684, P < .001). During hospitalization overall 76 (14.7%) complications occurred. The mean follow-up rate and time were 92% and 5 ± 3.5 months, respectively. While all patients in the study cohort improved in clinical outcome parameters, the effect size was significantly less in the patients not treated in line with the OF score's recommendation. Eight (3%) patients needed revision surgery. CONCLUSIONS Patients treated according to the OF score's recommendations showed favorable short-term clinical results. Noncompliance with the score resulted in more pain and impaired functional outcome and quality of life. The OF score is a reliable and save tool to aid treatment decision in OVCF

Variations in management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures as designated by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System

Objective: Optimal management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures, as defined by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System, remains controversial. The objectives of this study were to determine whether significant management variations exist with respect to 1) fracture location across the upper, middle, and lower subaxial cervical spine and 2) geographic region, experience, or specialty. Methods: A survey was internationally distributed to 272 AO Spine members across six geographic regions (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East). Participants\u27 management of A3 and A4 subaxial cervical fractures across cervical regions was assessed in four clinical scenarios. Key characteristics considered in the vignettes included degree of neurological deficit, pain severity, cervical spine stability, presence of comorbidities, and fitness for surgery. Respondents were also directly asked about their preferences for operative management and misalignment acceptance across the subaxial cervical spine. Results: In total, 155 (57.0%) participants completed the survey. Pooled analysis demonstrated that surgeons were more likely to offer operative intervention for both A3 (p \u3c 0.001) and A4 (p \u3c 0.001) fractures located at the cervicothoracic junction compared with fractures at the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. There were no significant variations in management for junctional incomplete (p = 0.116) or complete (p = 0.342) burst fractures between geographic regions. Surgeons with more than 10 years of experience were more likely to operatively manage A3 (p \u3c 0.001) and A4 (p \u3c 0.001) fractures than their younger counterparts. Neurosurgeons were more likely to offer surgical stabilization of A3 (p \u3c 0.001) and A4 (p \u3c 0.001) fractures than their orthopedic colleagues. Clinicians from both specialties agreed regarding their preference for fixation of lower junctional A3 (p = 0.866) and A4 (p = 0.368) fractures. Overall, surgical fixation was recommended more often for A4 than A3 fractures in all four scenarios (p \u3c 0.001). Conclusions: The subaxial cervical spine should not be considered a single unified entity. Both A3 and A4 fracture subtypes were more likely to be surgically managed at the cervicothoracic junction than the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. The authors also determined that treatment strategies for A3 and A4 subaxial cervical spine fractures varied significantly, with the latter demonstrating a greater likelihood of operative management. These findings should be reflected in future subaxial cervical spine trauma algorithms

Clinical Evaluation of the Osteoporotic Fracture Treatment Score (OF-Score): Results of the Evaluation of the Osteoporotic Fracture Classification, Treatment Score and Therapy Recommendations (EOFTT) Study

Study DesignMulticenter prospective cohort study.ObjectiveThe study aims to validate the recently developed OF score for treatment decisions in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF).MethodsThis is a prospective multicenter cohort study (EOFTT) in 17 spine centers. All consecutive patients with OVCF were included. The decision for conservative or surgical therapy was made by the treating physician independent of the OF score recommendation. Final decisions were compared to the recommendations given by the OF score. Outcome parameters were complications, Visual Analogue Scale, Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, Timed Up & Go test, EQ-5D 5 L, and Barthel Index.ResultsIn total, 518 patients (75.3% female, age 75 ± 10) years were included. 344 (66%) patients received surgical treatment. 71% of patients were treated following the score recommendations. For an OF score cut-off value of 6.5, the sensitivity and specificity to predict actual treatment were 60% and 68% (AUC .684, P < .001). During hospitalization overall 76 (14.7%) complications occurred. The mean follow-up rate and time were 92% and 5 ± 3.5 months, respectively. While all patients in the study cohort improved in clinical outcome parameters, the effect size was significantly less in the patients not treated in line with the OF score’s recommendation. Eight (3%) patients needed revision surgery.ConclusionsPatients treated according to the OF score’s recommendations showed favorable short-term clinical results. Noncompliance with the score resulted in more pain and impaired functional outcome and quality of life. The OF score is a reliable and save tool to aid treatment decision in OVCF

Effect of surgical experience and spine subspecialty on the reliability of the {AO} Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System

OBJECTIVE The objective of this paper was to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on surgeon experience (&lt; 5 years, 5–10 years, 10–20 years, and &gt; 20 years) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine surgery, neurosurgery, and "other" surgery). METHODS A total of 11,601 assessments of upper cervical spine injuries were evaluated based on the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. Reliability and reproducibility scores were obtained twice, with a 3-week time interval. Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the percentage of accurately classified injuries, and Pearson’s chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was used to screen for potentially relevant differences between study participants. Kappa coefficients (κ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS The intraobserver reproducibility was substantial for surgeon experience level (&lt; 5 years: 0.74 vs 5–10 years: 0.69 vs 10–20 years: 0.69 vs &gt; 20 years: 0.70) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine: 0.71 vs neurosurgery: 0.69 vs other: 0.68). Furthermore, the interobserver reliability was substantial for all surgical experience groups on assessment 1 (&lt; 5 years: 0.67 vs 5–10 years: 0.62 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs &gt; 20 years: 0.62), and only surgeons with &gt; 20 years of experience did not have substantial reliability on assessment 2 (&lt; 5 years: 0.62 vs 5–10 years: 0.61 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs &gt; 20 years: 0.59). Orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons had substantial intraobserver reproducibility on both assessment 1 (0.64 vs 0.63) and assessment 2 (0.62 vs 0.63), while other surgeons had moderate reliability on assessment 1 (0.43) and fair reliability on assessment 2 (0.36). CONCLUSIONS The international reliability and reproducibility scores for the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability regardless of surgical experience and spine subspecialty. These results support the global application of this classification system

CT-basierte Computernavigation von Pedikelschrauben an der Brustwirbelsäule

Die Einführung der Computer-assistierten Navigation von Pedikelschrauben an der Wirbelsäule in den klinischen Alltag konnte in mehreren Studien eine signifikante Senkung der Fehlplatzierungsraten auf deutlich unter 10% zeigen. Es existieren aber nur spärliche Daten bezüglich der Navigation an der Brustwirbelsäule und deren Anwendung bei unfallchirurgischen Patienten, typischerweise mit frischen Frakturen. Ziel dieser Arbeit war es, die Genauigkeit der CT-basierten Navigation von Pedikelschrauben an der Brustwirbelsäule mit Hilfe eines optoelektronischen Navigationssystems bei Patienten mit Frakturen, Tumoren und Entzündungen im Vergleich zur konventionellen Technik zu untersuchen. Dazu wurden bei 85 Patienten 324 Pedikelschrauben, 211 navigiert und 113 konventionell, an der Brustwirbelsäule gesetzt. Die Navigation erfolgte mit einem optoelektronischen System, wobei zusätzlich ein Bildverstärker zur Lagekontrolle verwendet wurde. Postoperativ wurde die Pedikelschraubenplatzierung mit Hilfe von Computertomogrammen dargestellt und durch einen unabhängigen Radiologen ausgewertet. In der navigierten Gruppe wurden 174 (82,5%) Schrauben korrekt platziert. In der konventionellen Gruppe waren es mit 77 (68,1%) Schrauben signifikant weniger (p < 0,003). Allerdings ließen sich erhebliche Fehllagen von über 4 mm in 1,9% der Fälle trotz Navigation nicht vermeiden. Die zusätzliche Röntgendurchleuchtung vermied vor allem die Navigation falscher Wirbelkörper sowie Abweichungen der Schrauben nach kaudal bzw. kranial.Several studies have shown that computer assisted pedicle screw insertion in spinal surgery can decrease pedicle perforation rate significantly to less than 10%. However, few data exist concerning the accuracy of pedicle screw navigation in the thoracic spine in trauma patients. The goal of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of CT-based computer assisted pedicle screw insertion in the thoracic spine in patients with fractures, metastases and spondylodiscitis compared to conventional technique. 324 pedicle screws were inserted in the thoracic spines of 85 patients. 211 screws were placed using a CT-based optoelectronic navigation system assisted by an image intensifier. 113 screws were placed with conventional technique. Screw positions were evaluated with postoperative CT-scans by an independent radiologist. In the computer assisted group 174 (82,5%) screws were found completely within their pedicles compared with 77 (68,1%) correctly placed srews in the conventional group (p < 0,003). Despite of using the navigation system 1,9% of the computer assisted screws perforated the pedicle wall more than 4 mm. The additional use of the image intensifier helped identifying the correct vertebral body and avoided cranial or caudal pedicle wall perforations

Dynamic Stabilization in Addition to Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

Study Design. Prospective clinical study. Objective. To test whether elastic stabilization with the Dynesys system (Zimmer Spine, Minneapolis, MN) provides enough stability to prevent further progression of spondylolisthesis as well as instability after decompression for spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Summary of Background Data. In spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis, decompression and fusion is widely recommended. However, patients have donor site pain. In 1994, a dynamic transpedicular system (Dynesys) was introduced to the market, stating that stabilization is possible without bone grafting. Methods. A total of 26 patients (mean age 71 years) with lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis underwent interlaminar decompression and dynamic stabilization with the Dynesys system. Minimum follow-up was 2 years. Operative data, clinical outcome, and plain and flexion/extension radiographs were obtained and compared to preoperative and postoperative data. Results. Mean leg pain decreased significantly (P Ͻ 0.01), and mean walking distance improved significantly to more than 1000 m (P Ͻ 0.01). There were 5 patients (21%) who still had some claudication. A total of 21 patients (87.5%) would undergo the same procedure again. Radiographically, no significant progression of spondylolisthesis could be detected. The implant failure rate was 17%, and none of them were clinically symptomatic. Conclusions. In elderly patients with spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis, dynamic stabilization with the Dynesys system in addition to decompression leads to similar clinical results as seen in established protocols using decompression and fusion with pedicle screws. It maintains enough stability to prevent further progression of spondylolisthesis or instability. With the Dynesys system, no bone grafting is necessary, therefore, donor site morbidity can be avoided

Implant removal after posterior stabilization of the thoraco-lumbar spine

INTRODUCTION: Implant removal because of pain after posterior fusion in the thoracic and lumbar spine is a widely performed operation. We conducted a retrospective study to examine whether patients benefit from implant removal. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 57 patients (29 males, 28 females, mean age 46.5 years) who have undergone removal of pedicle screws because of pain and discomfort were interviewed 6-24 months postoperatively. Fracture was the initial diagnosis in 40% of the patients and degenerative spine disease in 58%. The following factors were evaluated: patient satisfaction and postoperative outcome, patients' native language and psychological background, operative data, hospital stay and complications. RESULTS: Pain decreased significantly from 62 to 48 on visual analogue scale postoperatively. Complications occurred in five patients (8.8%). 36 patients (61%) stated they had some benefit from the operation, but only seven patients (12%) were free of pain completely. 36 patients (63%) would undergo the same procedure again. Outcome in the subgroup of foreigners was significantly worse, though the psychological background did not affect the outcome. Preoperative diagnostic infiltration was helpful in 9 of 13 patients. CONCLUSION: Removal of pedicle screws because of back pain may be effective, but complete remission of symptoms could be achieved in only 12% of patients. However, 63% of patients would undergo hardware removal again. Preoperative diagnostic infiltration can help to predict the outcome but results are inconsistent. Communication difficulties may worsen the outcome. Surgeons should consider these results when planning implant removal and patients should be informed thoroughly to avoid too high expectations