ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2024
Trends in management of odontoid fractures 2010-2021.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- National Demographic and Treatment Patterns of Finger Cellulitis, Paronychias, and Felons.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Anterior Odontoid Screw Fixation for Trauma: Case Series and Technical Considerations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background Context: Odontoid fractures are relatively common. However, the literature is unclear how these fractures are best managed in many scenarios. As such, care is varied and poorly characterized. Purpose: To investigate the trends and predictive factors of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment and anterior versus posterior stabilization of odontoid fractures. Study Design/Setting: Retrospective database cohort study. Patient Sample: Adult patients with odontoid fractures between 2010 and 2021. Outcome Measures: Yearly trends and predictors of odontoid fracture management. Methods: Adult patients with odontoid fractures were abstracted from the large, national, administrative M161Ortho Pearldiver dataset. For operative versus nonoperative care of odontoid fractures, yearly rates were determined (since 2016 based on coding limitations). For anterior versus posterior stabilization, yearly rates were determined (2010-2021). Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed for both sets of comparisons. Results: For assessment of nonsurgical versus surgical management from 2016 to 2021, a total of 42,754 patients with odontoid fracture were identified, of which surgical intervention was done for 7.9%. Predictive factors of surgical intervention included being managed by a neurosurgeon (OR:1.29), being from Midwest United States (OR:1.35 relative to West), male sex (OR:1.20), and decreasing age (OR: 0.82 per decade) (p < .001 for each). Of those undergoing surgical intervention, 33.6% had anterior surgery while 66.4% had posterior surgery (anterior surgery decreased from 36.4% in 2010 to 27.2% in 2021, p < .001). Predictive factors of undergoing anterior versus posterior approach include having a neurosurgeon surgeon (OR:1.98), being from the Southern (OR:1.61 relative to Northeast), and having Medicare insurance (OR: 1.31) (p < .001 for each). Conclusions: The overall rate of surgery for odontoid fractures has remained similar over the past years. Of those undergoing surgery, less are being done from anterior. While these decisions were predicted by some clinical factors, both also correlated with nonclinical factors suggesting room for more consistent algorithms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.