SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Determining the optimal management of geriatric type II odontoid fractures: a comparative network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Type II odontoid fractures are the most common cervical injury in geriatric populations, yet optimal management remains debated. This study compared the safety and effectiveness of non-surgical management (NSM), anterior dens screw (ADS) fixation, and posterior arthrodesis (PA) in these patients. A systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA-NMA guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to October 2025. Comparative studies including patients ≥ 60 years with Anderson-D’Alonzo type II fractures and reporting at least one primary outcome (mortality, union, stable non-union, unstable non-union) were eligible. Random-effects network models generated pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Nineteen studies involving 1242 patients were included (475 NSM; 340 ADS; 427 PA). Mortality did not differ among strategies. PA demonstrated the highest odds of union (OR 8.35, 95% CI 3.79–18.40 versus NSM), followed by ADS (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.10–4.35 versus NSM). PA also outperformed ADS for fusion (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12–0.56). Stable non-union odds were similar across interventions, but unstable non-union was significantly more common after NSM (ADS versus NSM OR 5.93, 95% CI 1.33–26.35; PA versus NSM OR 13.55, 95% CI 2.50–73.36). Systemic morbidity was higher after both ADS (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.02–3.44) and PA (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.20–4.36) compared with NSM, while mechanical complications and secondary operation were uncommon and comparable. No global or local inconsistency was detected. In geriatric patients with type II odontoid fractures, PA provides the most reliable fusion and lowest unstable non-union risk, whereas NSM offers comparable survival with lower systemic morbidity but higher structural failure. ADS occupies an intermediate position, benefiting select anatomies where motion preservation or avoidance of prone surgical positioning is advantageous. Treatment should be individualized using a morphology-frailty framework that balances biomechanical stability against physiological reserve.
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.