Tag: fracture

Posted on

Odontoid screw placement for Anderson type II odontoid fractures: how do duration from injury to surgery and clinical and radiological factors influence the union rate? A multicenter retrospective study

J Neurosurg Spine 34:27–31, 2021

Anderson type II odontoid fractures are severe conditions, mostly affecting elderly people (≥ 70 years old). Surgery can be performed as a primary treatment or in cases of failed conservative management. This study aimed to investigate how duration from injury to surgery, as well as clinical, radiological, and surgical risk factors, may influence the union rate after anterior odontoid screw placement for Anderson type II odontoid fractures.

METHODS The authors conducted a retrospective multicenter study. Demographic, clinical, surgical, and radiological data of patients who underwent anterior odontoid screw placement for Anderson type II fractures were retrieved from institutional databases. Study exclusion criteria were prolonged corticosteroid drug therapy (> 4 weeks), polytraumatic injuries, oncological diagnosis, and prior cervical spine trauma.

RESULTS Eighty-five patients were included in the present investigation. The union rate was 76.5%, and 73 patients (85.9%) did not report residual instability. Age ≥ 70 years (p < 0.001, OR 6), female gender (p = 0.016, OR 3.61), osteoporosis (p = 0.009, OR 4.02), diabetes (p = 0.056, OR 3.35), fracture diastasis > 1 mm (p < 0.001, OR 8.5), and duration from injury to surgery > 7 days (p = 0.002, OR 48) independently influenced union rate, whereas smoking status (p = 0.677, OR 1.24) and odontoid process angulation > 10° (p = 0.885, OR 0.92) did not.

CONCLUSIONS Although many factors have been reported as influencing the union rate after anterior odontoid screw placement for Anderson type II fractures, duration from injury to surgery > 7 days appears to be the most relevant, resulting in a 48 times higher risk for nonunion. Early surgery appears to be associated with better radiological outcomes, as reported by orthopedic surgeons in other districts. Prospective comparative clinical trials are needed to confirm these results.

Posted on

Vertebral body fracture rates after stereotactic body radiation therapy compared with external-beam radiation therapy for metastatic spine tumors

J Neurosurg Spine 33:870–876, 2020

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is utilized to deliver highly conformal, dose-escalated radiation to a target while sparing surrounding normal structures. Spinal SBRT can allow for durable local control and palliation of disease while minimizing the risk of damage to the spinal cord; however, spinal SBRT has been associated with an increased risk of vertebral body fractures. This study sought to compare the fracture rates between SBRT and conventionally fractionated external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in patients with metastatic spine tumors.

METHODS Records from patients treated at the University of California, San Francisco, with radiation therapy for metastatic spine tumors were retrospectively reviewed. Vertebral body fracture and local control rates were compared between SBRT and EBRT. Ninety-six and 213 patients were identified in the SBRT and EBRT groups, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified the need to control for primary tumor histology (p = 0.003 for prostate cancer, p = 0.0496 for renal cell carcinoma). The patient-matched EBRT comparison group was created by matching SBRT cases using propensity scores for potential confounders, including the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS), the number and location of spine levels treated, sex, age at treatment, duration of follow-up (in months) after treatment, and primary tumor histology. Covariate balance following group matching was confirmed using the Student t-test for unequal variance. Statistical analysis, including propensity score matching and multivariate analysis, was performed using R software and related packages.

RESULTS A total of 90 patients met inclusion criteria, with 45 SBRT and 45 EBRT matched cases. Balance of the covariates, SINS, age, follow-up time, and primary tumor histology after the matching process was confirmed between groups (p = 0.062, p = 0.174, and 0.991, respectively, along with matched tumor histology). The SBRT group had a higher 5-year rate of vertebral body fracture at 22.22% (n = 10) compared with 6.67% (n = 3) in the EBRT group (p = 0.044). Survival analysis was used to adjust for uneven follow-up time and showed a significant difference in fracture rates between the two groups (p = 0.044). SBRT also was associated with a higher rate of local control (86.67% vs 77.78%).

CONCLUSIONS Patients with metastatic cancer undergoing SBRT had higher rates of vertebral body fractures compared with patients undergoing EBRT, and this difference held up after survival analysis. SBRT also had higher rates of initial local control than EBRT but this difference did not hold up after survival analysis, most likely because of a high percentage of radiosensitive tumors in the EBRT cohort.

Posted on

Patterns of C-2 fracture in the elderly: comparison of etiology, treatment, and mortality among speci c fracture types

J Neurosurg Spine 27:494–500, 2017

Previous studies have focused on Type II odontoid fractures and have failed to report on the effect of other C-2 fracture types on treatment and outcome. The purpose of this study was to compare patient characteristics, cause of injury, predisposing factors to fracture, treatments, and mortality rates among C-2 fracture types in a cohort of elderly patients 70 years of age and older.

METHODS A retrospective cohort study design was used. Patients who sustained a C-2 fracture between 2002 and 2011 and who were admitted to the authors’ Level 1 trauma center were identified using the Discharge Abstract Database and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) code S12.1. Fractures were classified as odontoid Type I, II, or III; hangman’s; C-2 complex (hangman’s appearance on sagittal images, Type III odontoid on coronal cuts); and other (miscellaneous). Age, sex, predisposing factors to falls, cause of injury, treatment, presence of autofusion in the subaxial cervical spine, and mortality rates were compared between fracture patterns.

RESULTS One hundred forty-one patients were included; their mean age was 82 years. Fractures included Type II odontoid (57%), complex (19%), Type III odontoid (11%), hangman’s (8%), and other (5%). Falls from a standing height accounted for 47% of injuries, and 65% of patients had ≥ 3 risk factors for falls. Subaxial autofusion was more common in odontoid fractures (p = 0.002). Treatment was mainly nonoperative (p < 0.0001). The 1-year mortality rate was 27%. Four patients died of spinal cord injury.

CONCLUSIONS Although not as common as Type II odontoid fractures, other C-2 fractures including hangman’s, complex, and Type III odontoid fractures accounted for close to half of the injuries in the study cohort. There were few differences between the fracture types with respect to cause of injury, predisposing factors, or mortality rate. However, surgical treatment was more common for Type II odontoid fractures.

Posted on

Occult Spinous Process Fractures Associated With Interspinous Process Spacers

Spine 2011;36:E1080–E1085. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318204066a

Biomechanical cadaveric studies have suggested adequate spinous process strength to support placement of interspinous process spacers (IPS). Postoperative spinous process fractures have been reported in one%—to 5.8% of patients in previous series based on routine biplanar radiographic evaluation. However, most fractures occur between the base and midportion of the spinous process in an area that is typically diffi cult to visualize on plain radiographs due to device design.

Methods. All patients underwent preoperative biplanar plain radiographs and computed tomography (CT) of the lumbar spine to confirm anatomy favorable for IPS placement and rule out fracture or spondylolysis. Postoperatively, all patients underwent repeat CT imaging within six months of surgery, biplanar radiographs at two weeks, six weeks, three months, six months, and one year. All studies were reviewed independently by a neuroradiologist and two orthopedic spine surgeons.

Results. Fifty implants (38 L4–5, 12 L3–4) were placed in 38 patients who completed follow-up and were included in final analysis. Three IPS designs were included (34 Medtronic X-STOP titanium, 8 X-STOP PEEK, 8 Lanx Aspen). Postoperative CT revealed 11 nondisplaced spinous process fractures in 11 patients (28.9% of patients, 22% of levels). Five fractures were associated with mild to moderate lumbar back pain and six fractures were asymptomatic. No patient reported a traumatic incident. No fracture was identifiable on plain radiographs. One fracture displaced during follow-up evaluation. Three patients underwent IPS removal and laminectomy. Three fractures healed by CT in one year. Overall, patients with fractures tended toward poorer outcomes by Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) (28.5% vs. 34.8% improvement in symptom severity, P=  0.496; 21.4% vs. 30.7% improvement in physical function, P = 0.199) and tended toward lower satisfaction rates (50% vs. 73.7%, P = 0.24) at one year compared to patients without fracture.

Conclusion. Interspinous process spacer surgery appears associated with a higher rate of early postoperative spinous process fracture than previously reported. In all cases, in this series, plain radiographs were inadequate to identify fractures because all fractures were initially minimal or nondisplaced, many patients were osteopenic, and the metallic wings of the devices often obscured fractures. Moreover, in most patients, fractures were associated with mild or no acute localized pain. This study suggests that unrecognized spinous process fracture may be responsible for a signifi cant number of patients who experience unsatisfactory outcome after IPS surgery. CT imaging is required to identify the vast majority of such fractures.

Proudly powered by WordPress