Tag: atlantoaxial instability

Posted on

New Posterior Atlantoaxial Restricted Non-Fusion Fixation for Atlantoaxial Instability

New Posterior Atlantoaxial Restricted Non-Fusion Fixation for Atlantoaxial Instability

Neurosurgery 78:735–741, 2016

Loss of axial rotation and lateral bending after atlantoaxial fusion reduces a patient’s quality of life. Therefore, effective, nonfusion fixation alternatives are needed for atlantoaxial instability.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the initial stability and function of posterior atlantoaxial restricted nonfusion fixation (PAARNF), a new protocol, using cadaveric cervical spines compared with the intact state, destabilization, and posterior C1-C2 rod fixation.

METHODS: Cervical areas C0 through C3 were used from 6 cadaveric spines to test flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation range of motion (ROM). With the use of a machine, 1.5-Nm torque at a rate of 0.1 Nm/s was used and held for 10 seconds. The specimens were loaded 3 times, and data were collected in the third cycle and tested in the following sequence: (1) intact, (2) destabilization (using a type II odontoid fracture model), (3) destabilization with PAARNF (PAARNF group), and (4) rod implantation (rod group). The order of tests for the PAARNF and rod groups was randomly assigned.

RESULTS: The average flexion-extension ROM in the PAARNF group was 7.44 6 2.05, which was significantly less than in the intact (P = .00) and destabilization (P = .00) groups but not significantly different from that of the rod group (P = .07). The average lateral bending ROM (10.59 6 2.33; P = .00) and axial rotation ROM (38.79 6 13.41; P = .00) of the PAARNF group were significantly greater than in the rod group. However, the values of the PAARNF group showed no significant differences compared with those of the intact group.

CONCLUSION: PAARNF restricted atlantoaxial flexion-extension but preserved axial rotation and lateral bending at the atlantoaxial joint in a type II odontoid fracture model. However, it should not be used clinically until further studies have been performed to test the long-term effects of this procedure.

Posted on

Bifid Anterior and Posterior Arches of Atlas

Bifid Anterior and Posterior Arches of Atlas- Surgical Implication and Analysis of 70 Cases

Neurosurgery 77:296–306, 2015

On reviewing the database of patients with craniovertebral junction anomalies, the authors identified 70 patients with a bifid posterior arch of atlas.

OBJECTIVE: To speculate on the pathogenesis of spondyloschisis of both the anterior and posterior arches of atlas, particularly as it relates to atlantoaxial instability.

METHODS: Seventy patients with bifid anterior and posterior arches were identified by a retrospective review of the database from 2007 to 2013.

RESULTS: The ages of the patients ranged from 14 months to 50 years. The patients were divided into 3 groups. Group 1 (3 patients) had multiple additional spinal bony and neural abnormalities. Group 2 (34 patients) had mobile and partially (5) or completely (29) reducible atlantoaxial dislocation. Group 3 (33 patients) had atlantoaxial instability and related basilar invagination. The os odontoideum was identified in 21 patients, and C2-3 fusion was seen in 24 patients. Two of 3 patients in group 1 were treated conservatively and without any surgery. All patients in groups 2 and 3 were surgically treated. Surgery was done using lateral mass plate/rod and screw fixation techniques. The general observation during surgery included identification of discrete movements of both halves of the atlas, lateral positioning of the facets of atlas in relation to the facets of the axis and occipital condyle and closer approximation of the occipital bone, atlas, and axis resulting in “crumpling” of bone and neural elements.

CONCLUSION: Understanding of the pathogenesis and mechanical alterations in cases with a bifid arch of atlas can assist in evaluating the clinical implications and in conduct of surgery.

Posted on

Is the 4 mm height of the vertebral artery groove really a limitation of C1 pedicle screw insertion?

VA groove and C1 pedicle screw insertion

Eur Spine J (2014) 23:1109–1114

To explore the feasibility and effectiveness of C1 pedicle screw fixation in patients whose atlas vertebral artery groove (defined as the C1 pedicle) height is less than 4 mm, but with a medullary canal.

Methods From January 2010 to January 2013, 7 patients (6 males, 1 female) with atlantoaxial instability whose C1 pedicle height was less than 4.0 mm on one or both sides were treated by C1 pedicle screw fixation at our institution. Thirteen of the 14 C1 pedicles were less than 4.0 mm in height, but all had a medullary canal. Patients were followed up at regular intervals. Postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans were performed to assess if C1 pedicle screw placement was successful. Clinical outcomes were evaluated according to postoperative complications, the American Spinal Injury Association grading system, and bone graft status.

Results Thirteen C1 pedicles with a height less than 4.0 mm were inserted by 13 3.5- or 4.0-mm-diameter pedicle screws, and one C1 pedicle whose height was 4.1 mm was inserted by a 4.0-mm-diameter pedicle screw. In addition, 14 pedicle screws were inserted in the axis. The mean follow-up period was 23 (range 8–38) months. No neurologic or vascular complications occurred in any of the seven patients. Postoperative CT three-dimensional reconstruction images showed that all 14 pedicle screws were inserted in the C1 pedicles without destruction of the atlas pedicle cortical bone. All patients demonstrated bony fusion 6 months postoperatively.

Conclusion If there is a medullary canal in the C1 pedicle, a 3.5- or 4.0-mm-diameter pedicle screw can be safely inserted into the atlas and C1 pedicle screw fixation can be performed without any impact on fixation stability and clinical efficacy, even if the C1 pedicle height is less than 4.0 mm.

Posted on

Is inclusion of the occiput necessary in fusion for C1–2 instability in rheumatoid arthritis?

Is inclusion of the occiput necessary in fusion for C1–2 instability in rheumatoid arthritis?

J Neurosurg Spine 18:50–56, 2013

The atlantoaxial joint is the location most and earliest affected in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In longstanding disease, ligamentous and osseous destruction can progress and involve all cervical segments. If surgical intervention is necessary, some prefer, to be safe, undertaking fusion to the occiput, whereas others advocate 1-level fusion of C1–2. Sparing the occiput (Oc)–C1 segment would allow retention of a considerable amount of physiological range of motion and seems beneficial against subaxial overload. Previous clinical studies on this topic have provided only nonspecific data after short-term follow-up, rendering a segment-sparing approach questionable. The purpose of the present investigation was to assess long-term progression of inflammatory or degenerative destruction in the Oc–C1 segment after isolated C1–2 fusion for RA.

Methods. In a series of 113 consecutive patients with RA-related destruction restricted to the craniocervical junction, 14 individuals underwent Oc–C2 fusion and 99 underwent surgery exclusively at the C1–2 level. After a mean follow-up period of 9.4 years (range 4.9–14.7 years), 46 patients were available for clinical and radiographic examination, including CT imaging.

Results. None of the 46 patients needed additional surgery to extend the fusion to the occiput. Despite marked deterioration in the subaxial cervical spine, in general there were little or no changes in the atlantooccipital region. All but one patient presented with bony fusion of the fixed C1–2 level at follow-up.

Conclusions. The results of this investigation suggest that if the Oc–C1 joint is free of osseous destructions on conventional radiographs and free of abnormalities on MRI scans at the time of surgery (for transarticular fixation and fusion of C1–2), there is a very low risk for relevant destruction in the following 5–14 years. Thus, no prophylactic oligosegmental approach, but rather a segment-sparing monosegmental approach, is preferred, even in patients with high inflammatory levels.

Proudly powered by WordPress