ReviewJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine
A Comparison of different posterior arthrodesis techniques versus anterior dens screw for odontoid fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine. 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.
- 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Odontoid fractures are often managed surgically. The most common approaches are anterior dens screw (ADS) and posterior arthrodesis (PA), with the latter being associated with significantly higher fusion rates. PA techniques can include wiring, C1-C2 transarticular (TA) screws, and C1 lateral mass (LM)-C2 pars/pedicle screws. Most comparative studies group multiple PA techniques together when comparing PA versus ADS. Our objective was to systematically review the literature and identify studies that separately provide fusion rates of each different posterior C1-C2 arthrodesis (PA) technique utilized compared to ADS. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A random effects meta-analysis was performed, and the Results: In total, 15 studies comprising 685 patients (ADS: 377; wiring: 58; TA: 150; C1 LM-C2 pars/pedicle screws: 100). The average age of the patients ranged across the included studies between 22 and 82.4 years old. The mean last follow-up was >12 months in eight studies. Only two studies reported a follow-up period of <6 months. Most of the odontoid fractures were type II based on the Anderson-D'Alonzo classification. Use of C1 LM-C2 pars/pedicle screws was associated with significantly higher odds of fusion compared to ADS (C1 LM-C2 pars/pedicle: 97%; ADS: 87.2%; odds ratio [OR]: 3.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-11.29; Conclusions: C1-C2 TA screws and C1 LM-C2 pars/pedicle screws are both associated with statistically significant higher rates of fusion compared to ADS for odontoid fractures. ADS showed higher rates of fusion compared to wiring, although this did not reach statistical significance.
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.