ArticleUnfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025
[Treatment of geriatric odontoid fractures].
Article in Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of outcomes in the management of Type II odontoid fractures in young patients - Is surgery overrated?Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The treatment of odontoid fractures in geriatric patients, particularly type II fractures, remains controversial. In biologically young patients, studies suggest advantages of surgical treatment in terms of mortality; however, this advantage is not observed in geriatric patients. While the mortality appears to be higher after conservative treatment in patients aged 65-80 years, there are studies that have shown no differences in mortality for patients aged 80 years or older and even showed advantages of conservative treatment in this age group. The complication rates of both surgical and conservative approaches are comparable. Although conservative treatment is associated with a higher rate of pseudarthrosis, healing in a "rigid" pseudarthrosis is associated with a good clinical outcome and can therefore be considered a treatment success. The central problem with the currently available literature, including the present prospective but nonrandomized data, is selection bias, which significantly limits the comparability of the patient cohorts. So far, no clear superiority of either treatment method has been demonstrated. Therefore, conservative treatment retains its importance in the geriatric patient population and the majority of these patients achieve a very good functional outcome with conservative treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39814944What 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.