Comparison of complication rates between anterior versus posterior approaches for treating unstable Hangman's fracture. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Study design: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Objective: To compare the complication rates associated with anterior and posterior approaches for the surgical treatment of unstable hangman's fractures. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases to identify comparative studies reporting complications of anterior versus posterior approaches for the treatment of unstable hangman's fractures. Results: The search yielded 1163 papers from which 5 studies were fully included. One hundred fifteen (115) patients were operated on using an anterior approach versus 65 through a posterior approach. The average complication rates for the anterior and posterior approaches were 26.1 % and 13.8 %, respectively. No complications following the anterior approach required pharmacological or surgical intervention (Clavien-Dindo, Grade 1), while 88.9 % of complications following the posterior approach did (Clavien-Dindo, Grade 2). Conclusion: No significant differences in the complication rates were found when comparing anterior versus posterior surgery for treating a C2 traumatic spondylolisthesis. However, most of the complications presented in the posterior surgery group were more severe.

Keywords

• Hangman's fracture
• Systematic review
• Anterior approach
• Posterior approach
• Complications
• C2 traumatic spondylolisthesis