Dataset Information

Evaluation of external stabilization of type II odontoid fractures in geriatric patients-An experimental study on a newly developed cadaveric trauma model.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Along with the growing geriatric population, the number of odontoid fractures is steadily increasing. However, the effectiveness of immobilizing geriatric odontoid fractures using a cervical collar has been questioned. The aim of the present study is to analyze the physiological and pathological motion in odontoid fractures and to assess limitation of motion in the cervical spine when applying a cervical collar.

Methods

Motion analysis was performed with wireless motion tracker on unfixed geriatric human cadavers. First, a new geriatric type II odontoid fracture model was developed. In this model, the type II odontoid fracture is operated via a transoral approach. The physiological and pathological flexion and lateral bending of the cervical spine resulting from this procedure was measured. The resulting motion after external stabilization using a cervical collar was analyzed.

Results

The new geriatric type II odontoid fracture model was successfully established using seven unfixed human cadavers. The pathological flexion of the cervical spine was significantly increased compared to the physiological flexion (p = 0.027). Furthermore, the flexion was significantly reduced when a cervical collar was applied. In case of flexion the mean remaining motion was significantly reduced (p = 0.0017) from 41° to 14°. For lateral bending the mean remaining motion was significantly reduced (p = 0.0137) from 48° to 18°.

Conclusions

In case of type II odontoid fracture, flexion and lateral bending of the cervical spine are increased due to spinal instability. Thus, if an odontoid fracture is suspected in geriatric patients, the application of a cervical collar should always be considered since external stabilization can significantly reduce flexion and lateral bending.

SUBMITTER: Jung MK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8629171 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:STUDY DESIGN:Cost-effectiveness analysis. OBJECTIVE:To examine the cost-effectiveness of operative versus non-operative treatment of type-II odontoid fractures in patients older than 64 years old. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:Significant controversy exists regarding the optimum treatment of geriatric patients with type-II odontoid fractures. Operative treatment leads to lower rates of non-union but carries surgical risks. Non-operative treatment does not carry surgical risks but has higher non-union rates. METHODS:A decision-analytic model was created to compare operative and non-operative treatment of type-II odontoid fractures among three age cohorts (65-74, 75-84, >84) based on expected costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; cost per QALY gained). Age-specific mortality rates for both treatments, costs for treatment, and complication rates were taken from the literature, and data from 2010 US life tables were used for age-specific life expectancy. Costs of complications were estimated using data obtained at a level-I trauma center using micro-costing. Sensitivity analyses of all model parameters were conducted. RESULTS:Among the 65- to 74-year-old cohort, operative treatment was more costly ($53,407 vs. $30,553) and more effective (12.00 vs. 10.11 QALY), with an ICER of $12,078/QALY. Among the 75- to 84-year-old cohort, operative treatment was more costly ($51,308 vs. $29,789) and more effective (6.85 vs. 6.31 QALY), with an ICER of $40,467/QALY. Among the over-84 cohort, operative treatment was dominated by non-operative treatment as it was both more costly ($45,978 vs. $28,872) and less effective (2.48 vs. 3.73 QALY). The model was robust to sensitivity analysis across reasonable ranges for utility of union, disutility of complications and delayed surgery, and probabilities of non-union and complications. CONCLUSION:Operative treatment is cost-effective in patients age 65 to 84 when using $100,000/QALY as a benchmark but less effective and more costly than non-operative treatment in patients older than 84 years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:2.