↓ Skip to main content

Anterior management of C2 fractures using miniplate fixation: outcome, function and quality of life in a case series of 15 patients

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Anterior management of C2 fractures using miniplate fixation: outcome, function and quality of life in a case series of 15 patients
Published in
European Spine Journal, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00586-018-5556-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Axel Franke, Dan Bieler, Rebecca Wern, Tim Trotzke, Sebastian Hentsch, Erwin Kollig

Abstract

The classification systems by Anderson and D'Alonzo, Effendi, Benzel and others have limitations when it comes to morphologically categorising fractures of the second cervical vertebral body (C2) that present with or without an additional fracture of the dens or with or without an extension of the fracture line into the vertebral arch and displacement. Currently, there are no definitive recommendations for the treatment of fractures at the junction of the dens with the vertebral body of C2 on the basis of outcome and stability data. Depending on patient anatomy, either anterior or posterior approaches can be used to fuse C1 and C2 and to achieve definitive surgical stabilisation. The anterior management of C2 fractures without C1-C2 fusion has the theoretical advantage that it preserves rotational motion at this motion segment and that the anterior approach is associated with lower morbidity. In the study presented here, we followed up a group of our patients who underwent anterior miniplate fixation for C2 fractures. Fifteen patients underwent fixation of C2 fractures with titanium miniplates (Medartis Hand fixation system, 2.0 or 2.3 mm) that were placed using a submental approach. To our knowledge, this construct has not yet been described in the literature. Where necessary, this procedure was combined with screw fixation of the dens as described by Böhler. We retrospectively analysed operative reports and medical records, evaluated the patients' health status using the Short Form (36) Health Survey (SF-36), and performed clinical follow-up examinations. From January 2009 to June 2015, 226 traumatic lesions of the cervical spine were managed at our institution in the inpatient setting. Ninety-two patients underwent conservative treatment. Of the 134 cases that required surgery for fractures and instability, 67 involved the C0-C3 motion segments. In 15 patients, stability was achieved using an anterior miniplate or miniscrews alone (n = 4) or in addition to other techniques (n = 11). Anderson and D'Alonzo type II and III dens fractures with involvement of the body or lateral mass of C2 accounted for eight cases. Effendi type II body fractures with or without instability were seen in four cases. There was no perioperative mortality and morbidity in this patient group. All fractures healed and stability was achieved in all cases. No patient had neurological deficits or required revision surgery. An assessment of postoperative quality of life showed that 11 patients (7 men, 4 women) with a mean age of 57 (± 5.3) years reached an SF-36 score that was normal for their age group after a mean period of 33 (± 6.3) months following their injury. Compared to a group of healthy subjects, the patients had a range of motion that was limited only at the extremes. In patients with appropriate indications, anterior fixation with miniplates alone or additionally is a further useful treatment option in the management of fractures at the junction of the dens with the vertebral body of C2. Since this type of treatment preserves motion at the C1-C2 motion segment after fracture healing and since an anterior approach is associated with less surgical trauma than posterior instrumentation, the technique presented here should be included in a discussion on (surgical) treatment options. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 12 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 June 2018.
All research outputs
#12,752,356
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#1,427
of 4,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,952
of 331,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#18
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,670 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.