Suppr超能文献

II型齿状突骨折的手术治疗:前路齿状突螺钉固定还是后路颈椎器械融合?

Surgical treatment of Type II odontoid fractures: anterior odontoid screw fixation or posterior cervical instrumented fusion?

作者信息

Joaquim Andrei F, Patel Alpesh A

机构信息

Department of Neurology, State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), São Paulo, Brazil; and.

出版信息

Neurosurg Focus. 2015 Apr;38(4):E11. doi: 10.3171/2015.1.FOCUS14781.

Abstract

Odontoid fractures comprise as many as 20% of all cervical spine fractures. Fractures at the dens base, classified by the Anderson and D'Alonzo system as Type II injuries, are the most common pattern of all odontoid fractures and are also the most common cervical injuries in patients older than 70 years of age. Surgical treatment is recommended for patients older than 50 years with Type II odontoid fractures, as well as in patients at a high risk for nonunion. Anterior odontoid screw fixation (AOSF) and posterior cervical instrumented fusion (PCIF) are both well-accepted techniques for surgical treatment but with unique indications and contraindications as well as varied reported outcomes. In this paper, the authors review the literature about specific patients and fracture characteristics that may guide treatment toward one technique over the other. AOSF can preserve atlantoaxial motion, but requires a reduced odontoid, an intact transverse ligament, and a favorable fracture line to achieve adequate fracture compression. Additionally, older patients may have a higher rate of pseudarthrosis using this technique, as well as postoperative dysphagia. PCIF has a higher rate of fusion and is indicated in patients with severe atlantoaxial misalignment and with poor bone quality. PCIF allows direct open reduction of displaced fragments and can reduce any atlantoaxial subluxation. It is also used as a salvage procedure after failed AOSF. However, this technique results in loss of atlantoaxial motion, requires prone positioning, and demands a longer operative duration than AOSF, factors that can be a challenge in patients with severe medical conditions. Although both anterior and posterior approaches are acceptable, many clinical and radiological factors should be taken into account when choosing the best surgical approach. Surgeons must be prepared to perform both procedures to adequately treat these injuries.

摘要

齿突骨折占所有颈椎骨折的20%。齿突基底部骨折,根据安德森和达隆佐系统分类为Ⅱ型损伤,是所有齿突骨折中最常见的类型,也是70岁以上患者中最常见的颈椎损伤。对于50岁以上的Ⅱ型齿突骨折患者以及骨不连高危患者,建议进行手术治疗。前路齿突螺钉固定(AOSF)和后路颈椎器械融合(PCIF)都是广为接受的手术治疗技术,但具有独特的适应证和禁忌证,且报道的疗效也各不相同。在本文中,作者回顾了有关特定患者和骨折特征的文献,这些特征可能会指导治疗倾向于选择其中一种技术。AOSF可以保留寰枢椎活动度,但需要齿突复位、横韧带完整以及骨折线有利,以实现充分的骨折加压。此外,老年患者使用该技术可能有更高的假关节形成率以及术后吞咽困难。PCIF融合率更高,适用于严重寰枢椎脱位和骨质质量差的患者。PCIF允许直接切开复位移位的骨折块,并可减少任何寰枢椎半脱位。它也用作AOSF失败后的挽救手术。然而,该技术会导致寰枢椎活动度丧失,需要俯卧位,且手术时间比AOSF长,这些因素对于病情严重的患者可能是一个挑战。虽然前后路手术都是可以接受的,但在选择最佳手术入路时应考虑许多临床和影像学因素。外科医生必须准备好进行这两种手术,以充分治疗这些损伤。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验