The best surgical treatment for type II fractures of the dens is still controversial
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, ISSN: 1528-1132, Vol: 469, Issue: 3, Page: 742-750
2011
- 69Citations
- 76Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations69
- Citation Indexes69
- 69
- CrossRef59
- Captures76
- Readers76
- 76
- Mentions1
- News Mentions1
- News1
Most Recent News
C1–C2 Pedicle Screw Fixation for Treatment of Old Odontoid Fractures
Fracture of the odontoid (also known as dens fracture) is a common type of cervical spine fracture (approximately 10% to 20% of all cervical spine
Conference Paper Description
Background: Odontoid fractures are the most common odontoid injury and often cause atlantoaxial instability. Reports on postoperative status of patients who underwent surgery for such injuries are limited to small case series, and it is unclear whether any one technique produces better outcomes than another. Questions/purposes: We assessed the quality of the available literature for management of Type II odontoid fractures and surgery-related parameters, including surgical indications, clinical failure rate, and survivorship, postoperative ROM and function, neurologic deficits, complication and death rates, and radiographic healing rates related to either anterior dens screw or posterior C1-C2 fusion. Methods: We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Ovid, Cochrane Reviews, and Google Scholar databases. We used the methodology score proposed by Coleman et al. to rate study quality. Postoperative imaging bone union rates were extracted. Postoperative complications and neurologic impairment data were also collected. Results: Sixteen retrospective studies of overall low quality (average methodology score, 37.1) reporting a total of 518 patients were included. The methodology score and publication year were positively associated. The bone union rate approximated 83% (range, 33%-100%), with higher nonunion rates among patients older than 65 years. The death rate ranged widely (0%-28.6%) among different centers. Residual cervical pain was documented postoperatively from 10.5% to 26.7%, while survivorship ranged from 72% to 96.6%. No ROM data were reported. Conclusions: Current data on patients who had surgery for fracture of the dens did not allow us to establish superiority of one surgical approach over another. © The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2010.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=79953021391&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1677-x; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21161745; https://journals.lww.com/00003086-201103000-00017; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1677-x; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11999-010-1677-x; http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s11999-010-1677-x; http://www.springerlink.com/index/pdf/10.1007/s11999-010-1677-x
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know