|
The Cochrane Collaboration
Cochrane Reviews |
| Explore | New + Updated | Other languages |
|
|
|
Surgical versus conservative management for odontoid fracturesShears E, Armitstead CP SummarySurgical versus conservative management for an odontoid fracture (a serious neck injury)The seven bones making up the neck region of the backbone are called the cervical vertebrae. The first vertebra, called the atlas, supports the skull. Underneath this is the axis or second vertebra, which has a upward pointing process called the odontoid process around which the atlas can rotate, enabling the head to be turned. Fracture of the odontoid process is a serious injury and is often fatal. In survivors there is a risk of ongoing damage to the spinal cord and paralysis. People with these fractures are often treated conservatively, which entails stabilisation of the neck in devices such as a 'Halo' (external frame) and/or rigid collar for several months. Another option is surgical stabilisation of the fractured parts. The review aimed to examine the evidence from randomised controlled trials comparing surgical versus conservative treatment for these fractures to find if either approach gave a better outcome. Despite a comprehensive search, the review authors found no evidence from randomised controlled trials to inform the choice between surgical and conservative management.
This is a Cochrane review abstract and plain language summary, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration, currently published in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010 Issue 1, Copyright © 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.. The full text of the review is available in The Cochrane Library (ISSN 1464-780X).
This version first published online:
October 08. 2008 AbstractBackgroundFractures of the odontoid process of the second cervical vertebra can result in instability, neurological damage and death. Treatment includes conservative management (external immobilisation devices) or surgical treatment (internal fixation by posterior fusion or anterior screw fixation). ObjectivesTo compare surgical with conservative treatment for fractures of the odontoid process. Search strategyWe searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (February 2008), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2008), EMBASE (1988 to February 2008), LILACS (accessed February 2008), reference lists of articles and registries of ongoing trials. Selection criteriaRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing surgical versus conservative management of odontoid fractures. Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently examined the search results to identify trials for inclusion. Main resultsWe did not identify any studies that met our inclusion criteria. We excluded one ongoing and registered study that is comparing surgery versus conservative treatment because it does not involve randomisation of treatment allocation. Authors' conclusionsThere is no evidence available from adequately controlled trials to inform the decision on whether the surgical treatment of odontoid fractures gives a better outcome. A sufficiently powered good quality multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing surgery versus conservative treatment is warranted. |