Does isolated atlantoaxial fusion result in better clinical outcome compared to occipitocervical fusion?
BACKGROUND
The C0 to C2 region is the keystone for range of motion in the upper cervical spine. Posterior procedures usually include a fusion of at least one segment. Atlantoaxial fusion (AAF) only inhibits any motion in the C1/C2 segment whereas occipitocervical fusion (OCF) additionally interferes with the C0/C1 segment. The purpose of our study was to investigate clinical outcome of patients that underwent OCF or AAF for upper cervical spine injuries.


METHODS
Over a 5-year period (2010-2015), consecutive patients with upper cervical spine disorders were retrospectively identified as having been treated with OCF or AAF. The Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and the Neck Disability Index (NDI) were used to evaluate postoperative neck pain and health restrictions. Demographics, follow-up, and clinical outcome parameters were evaluated. Infection, hematoma, screw malpositioning, and deaths were used as complication variables. Follow-up was at least 6 months postoperatively.


RESULTS
Ninety-six patients (male = 42, female = 54) underwent stabilization of the upper cervical spine. OCF was performed in 44 patients (45.8%), and 52 patients (54.2%) were treated with AAF. Patients with OCF were diagnosed with more comorbidities (p = 0.01). Follow-up was shorter in the OCF group compared to the AAF group (6.3 months and 14.3 months; p = 0.01). No differences were found related to infection (OCF 4.5%; AAF 7.7%) and revision rate (OCF 13.6%; AAF 17.3%; p > 0.05). Regarding bother and disability, no differences were discovered utilizing the NDI score (AAF 21.4%; OCF 37.4%; p > 0.05). A reduction of disability measured by the NDI was observed with greater follow-up for all patients (p = 0.01).


CONCLUSION
Theoretically, AAF provides greater range of motion by preserving the C0/C1 motion segment resulting in less disability. The current study did not show any significant differences regarding clinical outcome measured by the NDI compared to OCF. No differences were found regarding complication and infection rates in both groups. Both techniques provide a stable treatment with comparable clinical outcome.
['Wenning|Katharina E|KE|http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0044-8107', 'Hoffmann|Martin F|MF|']
D000368:Aged D000369:Aged, 80 and over D001268:Atlanto-Axial Joint D002574:Cervical Vertebrae D005260:Female D005500:Follow-Up Studies D006801:Humans D008297:Male D008875:Middle Aged D009777:Occipital Bone D012189:Retrospective Studies D013119:Spinal Cord Injuries D013123:Spinal Fusion D016896:Treatment Outcome
Atlantoaxial fusion Outcome Occipitocervical fusion Cervical spine Injury Magerl-Gallie