The purpose of this study was to gain new insights into the epidemiologic characteristics of patients with atlas fractures and to retrospectively evaluate complication rates after surgical and non-surgical treatment.

In a retrospective study, consecutive patients diagnosed with a fracture of the atlas between 01/2008 and 07/2018 were analyzed. Data on epidemiology, concomitant injuries, fracture patterns and complications were obtained by chart and imaging review.

In total, 189 patients (mean age 72 years, SD 19; 57.1% male) were treated. The most frequent trauma mechanism was a low-energy trauma (59.8%). A concomitant injury of the cervical spine was found in 59.8%, a combined C1/C2 injury in 56.6% and a concomitant fracture of the thoraco-lumbar spine in 15.4%. When classified according to Gehweiler, there were: 23.3% type 1, 22.2% type 2, 32.8% type 3, 19.0% type 4 and 1.1% type 5. Treatment of isolated atlas fractures (n = 67) consisted of non-operative management in 67.1%, halo fixation in 6.0% and open surgical treatment in 26.9%. In patients with combined injuries, the therapy was essentially dictated by the concomitant subaxial cervical injuries.

Atlas fractures occurred mainly in elderly people and in the majority of the cases were associated with other injuries of the head and spine. Most atlas fractures were treated conservatively. However, surgical treatment has become a safe and valid option in unstable fracture patterns involving the anterior and posterior arch (type 3) or those involving the articular surfaces (type 4).

IV (Retrospective cohort study). These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Polls results

On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how much this article will change your clinical practice?

NO change
BIG change
80% Article relates to my practice (4/5)
20% Article does not relate to my practice (1/5)
0% Undecided (0/5)

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

60% Yes (3/5)
40% No (2/5)
0% Undecided (0/5)

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

20% Yes (1/5)
80% No (4/5)
0% Undecided (0/5)

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

0% Level 1 (0/5)
20% Level 2 (1/5)
20% Level 3 (1/5)
60% Level 4 (3/5)
0% Level 5 (0/5)