The Unstable Os Odontoideum in Asymptomatic Patients: Dorsal Treatment versus Observation
Alpesh A. Patel
The os odontoideum has been described as an upper cervical ossicle with corticalized margins and no bony continuity to the body of C2 (1, 2 and 3). The earliest reports of an os odontoideum has been attributed to either Giacomini (4) or Cunningham (5), both in 1886. Though many reports have described this condition, the exact incidence and prevalence of os odontoideum remains unclear. Sankar et al. (6), in a retrospective review of 519 abnormal pediatric radiographs, reported a 3.1% incidence of os odontoideum. Broader population-based statistics have yet to be identified.
The etiology of the os odontoideum has been a widely discussed topic with little consensus to date. The two most commonly reported etiologies are congenital and posttraumatic. Proponents of a congenital basis for os odontoideum highlight the coexistence of other congenital upper and subaxial cervical anomalies, as well as genetic conditions and familial associations (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13). Additionally, the lack of a known history of injury is thought to refute a posttraumatic cause (6,14). To the contrary, other authors have proposed that the os odontoideum is an acquired lesion after cervical trauma (1,14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19). In a retrospective review of 35 patients, Fielding et al. (16) reported eleven patients having a known history of cervical trauma prior to the age of four and nine patients with prior normal radiographs. The exact etiology of os odontoideum may be multifactorial with genetic, developmental, and environmental factors all contributing.
Ultimately, the etiology of os odontoideum is of little consequence to the diagnosis and treatment decision making. Defining the optimal treatment of os odontoideum remains difficult. Only case reports and small case series exist, providing weak supporting evidence (level IV and level V data). Published guidelines, hampered by this limited evidence, have offered only practice options with no strong recommendations (20). Patients with severe symptoms such as disabling neck pain, myelopathy, or spinal cord injury are considered surgical candidates and have been optimally treated with a dorsal cervical fusion (6,14,16,19, 20, 21, 22 and 23). The asymptomatic patient presents a more difficult clinical scenario. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the management of patients with an asymptomatic os odontoideum.
SYMPTOMS
Symptoms associated with os odontoideum include occipital-cervical neck pain, myelopathy, spinal cord injury, or, in some instances, intracranial signs and symptoms associated with vertebrobasilar ischemia (24,25). Neck pain is typically identified as upper cervical pain with extension into the occipital region (16,21). Myelopathic symptoms have been described as transient, progressive, or static spinal cord dysfunction (1,13,14,16,21,23,26,27). The spectrum of spinal cord injuries, from transient, incomplete to permanent, complete spinal cord injuries and death, has been reported (14,16,19,21,28,29).
It is typically only in the presence of significant or persistent symptoms that spinal imaging is obtained, providing the diagnosis of an os odontoideum. This is typically based upon plain radiographs but may also be supplemented with advanced imaging such as computed tomography (CT), myelography, or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (2). Individuals without symptoms do not routinely warrant cervical imaging, and therefore, the exact prevalence of os odontoideum remains unknown.
The asymptomatic os odontoideum may be detected incidentally, typically after minor cervical injuries, or in patients with subaxial neck pain or radiculopathy. It may also be detected incidentally after routine cervical imaging involved in many institutional trauma protocols (30). In these situations, initial observation of the os odontoideum is often suggested with close clinical follow-up (20). The literature, however, reveals numerous cases of progressive symptoms including neck pain, myelopathy, and spinal cord injury despite such conservative measures (21,30).
The potential for such progression supports the need for further classification, beyond clinical symptoms, in the diagnosis and treatment of os odontoideum.
The potential for such progression supports the need for further classification, beyond clinical symptoms, in the diagnosis and treatment of os odontoideum.
CLASSIFICATION AND STABILITY
There is no widely accepted classification system for os odontoideum. Authors have attempted, however, to identify morphologic characteristics of os odontoideum that may correlate with clinical symptoms. Matsui et al. (29) in a review of 12 patients with isolated os odontoideum, identified three morphologies based on the appearance of the C2 body on anterodorsal radiographs—round type, cone type, and blunt-tooth type. The authors reported cervical myelopathy symptoms, as well as lower average Japanese Orthopaedic Association myelopathy scores, among patients with a round-type os odontoideum. Asymptomatic or milder myelopathy scores were found in the other two groups. They hypothesize that cone-type and blunt-tooth-type os odontoideum are able to better resist lateral translation at the atlantoaxial joint and thereby protect the spinal cord (29).