Proposal of New Radiological Classification and Treatment Strategy for Transverse Fractures of the C2 Axis Body

• Main Authors: Sung‐Kyu Kim, Jong‐Hyun Ko, Jong‐Beom Park, Hyoung‐Yeon Seo, Dong‐Gune Chang, Kibong Chang
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 2021-06-01
• Series: Orthopaedic Surgery
• Subjects: Axis; Body; Classification; Fracture; Transverse; Treatment
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1111/os.13013
• ISSN: 1757-7853; 1757-7861

Objective To investigate the characteristics of transverse fractures of the C2 axis body diagnosed on sagittal computed tomography (CT) and to propose new classification and appropriate treatment strategies. Methods A retrospective study was performed by enrolling 49 patients (26 men and 23 women) with transverse fractures of the C2 axis body who were treated at four national trauma centers of tertiary university hospitals from January 2000 to December 2017. The mean age of the patients was 60.8 years (ranging from 21 to 90 years). We classified 49 transverse fractures of the C2 body into three types based on fracture trajectories involving superior articular facet (SAF) and lateral cortex (LC) of the C2 body on coronal CT as follows: Type 1, involvement of C2 SAF on both sides; Type 2, unilateral involvement of C2 SAF on one side and LC on the other side; Type 3, involvement of LC on both sides. The characteristics, treatment methods, and results of 49 transverse fractures of the C2 body were analyzed. Mean follow‐up was 12.6 months (ranging from 12 to 26 months). Results Twenty‐six (53.1%) patients were Type 1, 21 (42.9%) were Type 2, and 2 (4.0%) were Type 3. Correlation coefficients for intra‐observer and inter‐observer reliabilities of classification were 0.723 and 0.598 (both, P < 0.001), respectively. About 40.8% (7 Type 1 and 13 Type 2) of the patients had fracture displacement >3 mm; Incidence of fracture displacement >3 mm was higher in Type 2 than Type 1 (61.9% vs 26.9%, P < 0.05). About 79.6% (20 Type 1, 17 Type 2 and 2 Type 3) of the patients were treated conservatively, and 20.4% (6 Type 1 and 4 Type 2) underwent surgery. At last follow‐up, 47 out of 49 patients achieved fusion; overall fusion rate was 95.9%. All conservatively treated Type 1 and Type 3 patients achieved fusion. Out of 17 conservatively treated Type 2 patients, 15 achieved fusion but two developed nonunion; however, two nonunion patients opted not to undergo surgery. Subgroup analysis showed that Philadelphia brace caused nonunion significantly in fracture displacement >3 mm compared to Minerva brace/Halovest (100% vs 0%, P < 0.05). All surgically treated Type 1 and 2 patients achieved fusion. In terms of clinical outcomes, neck pain visual analog scale and neck disability index were significantly improved (both, P < 0.01). According to Odom's criteria, 93.9% (46/49) of the patients achieved satisfactory outcomes. No major complications occurred. Conclusions The majority of transverse fractures of C2 body can be treated conservatively. However, surgery or rigid Minerva brace/Halovest should be considered for Type 2 transverse fractures of the C2 body with fracture displacement >3 mm.