Maserati Matthew B, Stephens Bradley, Zohny Zohny, Lee Joon Y, Kanter Adam S, Spiro Richard M, Okonkwo David O
Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA.
J Neurosurg Spine. 2009 Oct;11(4):388-95. doi: 10.3171/2009.5.SPINE08866.
Occipital condyle fractures (OCFs) are rare injuries and their treatment remains controversial. Several classification systems have been proposed, first by Anderson and Montesano and more recently by Tuli and colleagues and Hanson and associates, who sought to stratify these fractures in a manner that would guide treatment that has typically ranged from semirigid collar immobilization to halo fixation or occipitocervical fusion. It has been the authors' impression, based on experience with OCFs at their institution, that classification is cumbersome and contributes little to the clinical decision-making process, while the identification of craniocervical misalignment and neural element compromise is paramount, and sufficient, for the planning of treatment.
The authors performed a retrospective review of 24,745 consecutive trauma presentations to a single Level I trauma center (UPMC Presbyterian Hospital) over a 6-year period, identifying 100 patients with 106 OCFs. All patients were evaluated by the spine trauma service and underwent imaging of the craniocervical junction using reconstructed CT scans. Patient characteristics, fracture characteristics (including fracture classification according to the 2 major classification systems), initial management, and status at follow-up were recorded.
The incidence of OCF in this trauma population was 0.4%. Two patients had evidence of craniocervical misalignment on reconstructed CT imaging at the time of admission; both patients underwent occipitocervical fusion. One patient underwent occipitocervical fusion for unrelated C1-2 fractures. The remainder of those surviving to discharge, whose fractures represented all fracture subtypes, received treatment with a rigid cervical collar or counseling alone. No patients, including 4 patients with bilateral OCFs, were found to have developed delayed craniocervical instability or misalignment on follow-up, or to require further neurosurgical intervention for an OCF. Neural element compression was not identified in any of the patients, and there were no cases of delayed cranial neuropathy.
Beyond the identification of craniocervical misalignment on reconstructed CT scans at admission, further classification of OCFs is unnecessary. Management should consist of up-front occipitocervical fusion or halo fixation in cases demonstrating occipitocervical misalignment, or of immobilization in a rigid cervical collar followed by delayed clinical and radiographic evaluation in a spine trauma clinic if misalignment is not present.
枕髁骨折(OCF)是罕见的损伤,其治疗仍存在争议。已经提出了几种分类系统,最初由安德森和蒙特萨诺提出,最近由图利及其同事以及汉森及其同事提出,他们试图以一种能够指导治疗的方式对这些骨折进行分层,治疗方法通常从半刚性颈托固定到头环固定或枕颈融合。根据作者所在机构对枕髁骨折的经验,他们的印象是,分类繁琐,对临床决策过程贡献不大,而颅颈错位和神经元件受损的识别对于治疗规划至关重要且足够。
作者对一家一级创伤中心(匹兹堡大学医学中心长老会医院)在6年期间连续收治的24745例创伤患者进行了回顾性研究,确定了100例患有106处枕髁骨折的患者。所有患者均由脊柱创伤服务团队进行评估,并使用重建CT扫描对颅颈交界区进行成像。记录患者特征、骨折特征(包括根据两种主要分类系统的骨折分类)、初始治疗和随访时的状况。
该创伤人群中枕髁骨折的发生率为0.4%。两名患者入院时重建CT成像显示有颅颈错位;两名患者均接受了枕颈融合术。一名患者因无关的C1-2骨折接受了枕颈融合术。其余存活至出院的患者,其骨折代表了所有骨折亚型,仅接受了刚性颈托治疗或咨询。在随访中,未发现包括4例双侧枕髁骨折患者在内的任何患者出现延迟性颅颈不稳定或错位,也未发现需要因枕髁骨折进行进一步神经外科干预的情况。在任何患者中均未发现神经元件受压,也没有延迟性颅神经病变的病例。
除了在入院时通过重建CT扫描识别颅颈错位外,无需对枕髁骨折进行进一步分类。对于显示颅颈错位的病例,治疗应包括早期枕颈融合或头环固定;如果没有错位,则应使用刚性颈托固定,随后在脊柱创伤诊所进行延迟的临床和影像学评估。