Predictors of surgical management and its impact on outcomes for combined C1–C2 fractures: National registry study

Introduction: Combined C1–C2 fractures are common upper cervical injuries with high morbidity and mortality. Controversy exists regarding which patients benefit from surgery because this is an understudied population with only class III evidence available. We examined surgical intervention and its impact on outcomes in patients with C1–C2 fractures. Methods: This retrospective cohort study of the National Trauma Data Bank included patients admitted between 1/2017 and 1/2023 for combined C1–C2 fractures (ICD-10 diagnosis codes S12.0 and S12.1). Exclusions were admission to a level III-V or non-trauma center, not admitted (died or discharged from the ED), and non-index/readmission. The first aim was to identify predictors of surgical intervention (vertebral fusion or internal fixation); multivariate backward regression included the following covariates: Patient demographics, injury severity, concomitant injuries, and specific C1 and C2 fractures. The second aim was to compare hospital outcomes between operative and nonoperative groups utilizing a propensity-matched (1:1) analysis: Mortality, ICU admission, complications, and hospital and ICU LOS. Results: There were 19,264 patients, and 3,759 (19.5%) were surgically managed. The adjusted odds of surgical intervention were greater with unstable injuries (displaced C1 fracture, displaced C2 fracture, spinal cord injury, vertebral ligament dislocation), specific C1 and C2 fractures (odontoid fracture, Jefferson burst fracture, posterior arch fracture), whereas surgical intervention odds decreased for frailty (mFI ≥2), ED hemodynamic instability, ED Glasgow coma score ≤8, and increasing age quintile. Propensity matching resulted in 6,710 well-matched patients. After matching, surgical intervention was associated with lower mortality (4.8% vs. 11.3%, p < 0.001) but higher ICU rates, longer LOS, and greater complication rates compared to the nonoperative group. Conclusion: This study of nearly 20,000 patients with combined C1–C2 fractures provides class II evidence for surgical intervention, highlighting the balance between injury characteristics and patient resilience. Surgical intervention was associated with a significant survival benefit, emphasizing its role in select patients.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Springer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology)
Published
2026-01-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2025058/pdf
Primary Topic
Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Predictors of surgical management and its impact on outcomes for combined C1–C2 fractures: National registry study

Kristin Salottolo, Peter Syre, Darryl A. Auston, David Bar-Or et al.
Springer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology)
Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
article

Predictors of surgical management and its impact on outcomes for combined C1–C2 fractures: National registry study

Kristin Salottolo, Peter Syre, Darryl A. Auston, David Bar-Or, David Acuna, W. Tyler Crawley
article en

Abstract

Introduction: Combined C1–C2 fractures are common upper cervical injuries with high morbidity and mortality. Controversy exists regarding which patients benefit from surgery because this is an understudied population with only class III evidence available. We examined surgical intervention and its impact on outcomes in patients with C1–C2 fractures. Methods: This retrospective cohort study of the National Trauma Data Bank included patients admitted between 1/2017 and 1/2023 for combined C1–C2 fractures (ICD-10 diagnosis codes S12.0 and S12.1). Exclusions were admission to a level III-V or non-trauma center, not admitted (died or discharged from the ED), and non-index/readmission. The first aim was to identify predictors of surgical intervention (vertebral fusion or internal fixation); multivariate backward regression included the following covariates: Patient demographics, injury severity, concomitant injuries, and specific C1 and C2 fractures. The second aim was to compare hospital outcomes between operative and nonoperative groups utilizing a propensity-matched (1:1) analysis: Mortality, ICU admission, complications, and hospital and ICU LOS. Results: There were 19,264 patients, and 3,759 (19.5%) were surgically managed. The adjusted odds of surgical intervention were greater with unstable injuries (displaced C1 fracture, displaced C2 fracture, spinal cord injury, vertebral ligament dislocation), specific C1 and C2 fractures (odontoid fracture, Jefferson burst fracture, posterior arch fracture), whereas surgical intervention odds decreased for frailty (mFI ≥2), ED hemodynamic instability, ED Glasgow coma score ≤8, and increasing age quintile. Propensity matching resulted in 6,710 well-matched patients. After matching, surgical intervention was associated with lower mortality (4.8% vs. 11.3%, p < 0.001) but higher ICU rates, longer LOS, and greater complication rates compared to the nonoperative group. Conclusion: This study of nearly 20,000 patients with combined C1–C2 fractures provides class II evidence for surgical intervention, highlighting the balance between injury characteristics and patient resilience. Surgical intervention was associated with a significant survival benefit, emphasizing its role in select patients.

Springer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 94%
Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.