Low-Threshold-For-Surgery Versus Primarily-Conservative Treatment for Odontoid Fractures in the Elderly: Evaluating Practice Variation in The Netherlands

Study Design Retrospective cohort study. Objectives Odontoid fractures are the most common cervical spine fractures in the elderly. The optimal treatment remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare results of a low-threshold-for-surgery strategy (surgery for dislocated fractures in relatively healthy patients) to a primarily-conservative strategy (for all patients). Methods Patient records from 5 medical centers were reviewed for patients who met the selection criteria (e.g. age & GE;55 years, type II/III odontoid fractures). Demographics, fracture types/characteristics, fracture union/stability, clinical outcome and mortality were compared. The influence of age on outcome was studied (& GE;55-80 vs & GE;80 years). Results A total of 173 patients were included: 120 treated with low-threshold-for-surgery (of which 22 primarily operated, and 23 secondarily) vs 53 treated primarily-conservative. No differences in demographics and fracture characteristics between the groups were identified. Fracture union (53% vs 43%) and fracture stability (90% vs 85%) at last follow-up did not differ between groups. The majority of patients (56%) achieved clinical improvement compared to baseline. Analysis of differences in clinical outcome between groups was infeasible due to data limitations. In both strategies, patients & GE;80 years achieved worse union (64% vs 30%), worse stability (97% vs 77%), and - as to be expected - increased mortality <104 weeks (2% vs 22%). Conclusions Union and stability rates did not differ between the treatment strategies. Advanced age (& GE;80 years) negatively influenced both radiological outcome and mortality. No cases of secondary neurological deficits were identified, suggesting that concerns for the consequences of under-treatment may be unjustified.