A Six Year Review of Odontoid Fractures: The Emerging Role of Surgical Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditionally, odontoid fractures have been treated with different bracing techniques resulting in variable degrees of successful healing. Surgical intervention is becoming more widely practiced as a primary intervention. The purpose of this report was to survey our recent experience in southern Alberta to determine potential outcome differences in management strategies. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 520 patients diagnosed with cervical spine fractures over a six-year period from January 1990, through December 1996. Patients were identified through the medical records database of the two Level 1 trauma facilities, on the basis of ICD-9 diagnostic coding. RESULTS: Ninety-three fractures of the odontoid process were identified, of which 85 were acute and eight were chronic. There were 57 Type II (67%) and 27 Type III (32%) acute odontoid fractures. Of these, 64 were managed conservatively (bracing), whereas 20 were treated surgically. Thirteen patients underwent anterior screw fixation, seven patients had posterior cervical fusion. Eleven patients died in the acute phase, two as a result of their high cervical cord injury and nine from unrelated medical causes. Fifty-six of the remaining 82 patients (68%) were located with a minimum of three months follow-up (range three months to eight years). Satisfactory results were obtained in 76% of all acute patients treated by bracing, but only 50% in those over the age of 65. In the surgically managed group, all patients (100%) went on to develop stable fusions. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that while conservative management of odontoid fractures with external bracing results in fracture healing in most cases, surgical fusion may provide superior rates of bony union with acceptable morbidity. This difference in outcome lends itself to formal investigation through a prospective randomized trial.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".