Paravertebral foramen screw fixation for posterior cervical spine surgery

J Neurosurg Spine 36:479–486, 2022

OBJECTIVE The goal of this study was to clarify the clinical utility of paravertebral foramen screws (PVFSs) and to determine intraoperative indicators for appropriate screw placement during posterior cervical fusion surgery to improve its safety.

METHODS The authors included data from 46 patients (29 men and 17 women, mean age 61.7 years) who underwent posterior cervical spine surgery with 94 PVFSs. Of the 94 PVFSs, 77 were used in C6, 9 in C3, 5 in C4, and 3 in C5. According to the cervical lateral radiographic view, the authors divided the 94 PVFSs into 3 groups as follows: a longer group, in which the tip of PVFS was located anteriorly from the line of the posterior wall of the vertebral body (> +0 mm); an intermediate group, in which the screw tip was located up to 2 mm posteriorly to the posterior wall of the vertebral body (–2 to 0 mm); and a shorter group, in which the screw tip was located more than 2 mm posteriorly (< –2 mm). The accuracy of screw placement was assessed using CT imaging in the axial plane, and the proportion of screws penetrating a vertebral foramen or a transverse foramen was compared between the 3 groups. Screw loosening was defined as a lucent zone around the screw evaluated on cervical radiography at 1 year after surgery. Complications related to PVFS insertion and revision surgery related to PVFS were evaluated.

RESULTS The authors classified 25 PVFSs into the longer group, 43 into the intermediate group, and 26 into the shorter group. The proportion of screws penetrating a vertebral foramen was largest in the shorter group, and the proportion penetrating a transverse foramen was largest in the longer group. Screw loosening was confirmed for 3 of 94 PVFSs. One PVFS inserted in C6 unilaterally within a long construct from C2 to C7 showed loosening, but it did not cause clinical symptoms. Revision surgery was required for 2 PVFSs inserted in C3 bilaterally as the lower instrumented vertebra in occiput–cervical fusion because they pulled out. There was no neurovascular complication related to PVFS insertion.

CONCLUSIONS PVFSs are useful for posterior cervical fusion surgery as alternative anchor screws, and the line of the posterior wall of the cervical body on lateral fluoroscopic images is a potential intraoperative reference to indicate an appropriate trajectory for PVFSs.

The V2 segment of the vertebral artery: anatomical considerations and surgical implications

J Neurosurg Spine 15:610–619, 2011. DOI: 10.3171/2011.7.SPINE1132
Iatrogenic injury of the V2 segment of the vertebral artery (VA) is a rare but serious complication and can be catastrophic. The purpose of this study was to characterize the relationship of the V2 segment of the VA to the surrounding anatomical structures and to highlight the potential site and mechanisms of injury that can occur during common neurosurgical procedures involving the subaxial cervical spine.
Methods. Ten adult cadaveric specimens (20 sides) were included in this study. Quantitative anatomical measurements between selected landmarks and the VA were obtained. In addition, lateral mass screws were placed bilaterally, from C-3 to C-7, reproducing either the Magerl technique or a modified technique. The safety angle, defined as the axial deviation from the screw trajectory needed to injure the VA, and the distance from the entry point to the VA were measured at each level for both techniques.
Results. The VA coursed closer to the midline at C3–4 and C4–5 (mean distance [SD] 14.9 ± 1.1 mm) than at C2–3 or C5–6. Within the intertransverse space it coursed closer to the uncinate processes of the vertebral bodies (1.8 ± 1.1 mm) than to the anterior tubercle of the transverse processes (3.4 ± 1.6 mm). The distance between the VA and the uncinate process was less at C3–6 (1.3 ± 0.7 mm) than at C2–3 (3.3 ± 0.8 mm). The VA coursed on average at a distance of 11.9 ± 1.7 mm from the anterior and 4.2 ± 2.6 mm from the posterior aspect of the intervertebral disc space. Lateral mass screw angles were 25° lateral and 39.1° cranial for the Magerl technique, and 36.6° lateral and 46.1° cranial for the modified technique. The safety angle was greater and screw length longer when using this modified technique.
Conclusions. The relation of the V2 segment of the VA to anterior procedures and lateral mass instrumentation at the subaxial cervical spine was reviewed in this study. A detailed anatomical knowledge of the V2 segment of the VA combined with careful preoperative imaging is mandatory for safe cervical spine surgery.