Evidence Hub

Type II Odontoid Fractures Case Series: History of Seizures a Risk Factor for Failure of Non-operative Treatment of Type II Odontoid Fractures

Matthew Prevost, John G. Devine, Uzondu F Agochukwu, J. Rumley

Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports, 2021

2 citations

Abstract

Introduction: Odontoid fractures are one of the most common injuries to the cervical spine. Type II odontoid fracture treatment varies depending on age, co-morbidities, and fracture morphology. Treatment ranges from cervical orthosis to surgical intervention. CurrentlyAt present, fractures with high non-union rates are considered for operative management which includes displacement of >6 mm, increasing age (>40-–60 years), fracture gap >1 mm, delay in treatment >4 days, posterior re-displacement >2 mm, increased angulation, and history of smoking. While re-displacement of >2 mm has been associated with increased risk of non-union;, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have looked at the risk factors for re-displacement. Case Report: We present two 26-year-old male patients who were found to have minimally displaced type II odontoid fractures initially treated in a cervical collar. These two patients were subsequently found to have displaced their odontoid fracture after having a documented seizure. Conclusion: We suggest that a history of seizures be considered a risk factor for re-displacement of non-displaced type II odontoid fractures.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free