Supplementation of Screw-Rod C1-C2 Fixation With Posterior Arch Femoral Head Allograft Strut

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David D Liu ◽  
Kendall Rivera-Lane ◽  
Owen P Leary ◽  
Nathan J Pertsch ◽  
Tianyi Niu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Head ◽  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
Spinous Process ◽  
Atlantoaxial Instability ◽  
Posterior Arch ◽  
Sublaminar Wiring ◽  
Fixation Techniques ◽  
C2 Nerve Root ◽  
Dural Tears ◽  
C2 Fixation

Abstract BACKGROUND Numerous C1-C2 fixation techniques exist for the treatment of atlantoaxial instability. Limitations of screw-rod and sublaminar wiring techniques include C2 nerve root sacrifice and dural injury, respectively. We present a novel technique that utilizes a femoral head allograft cut with a keyhole that rests posteriorly on the arches of C1 and C2 and straddles the C2 spinous process, secured by sutures. OBJECTIVE To offer increased fusion across C1-C2 without the passage of sublaminar wiring or interarticular arthrodesis. METHODS A total of 6 patients with atlantoaxial instability underwent C1-C2 fixation using our method from 2015 to 2016. After placement of a C1-C2 screw/rod construct, a cadaveric frozen femoral head allograft was cut into a half-dome with a keyhole and placed over the already decorticated dorsal C1 arch and C2 spinous process. Notches were created in the graft and sutures were placed in the notches and around the rods to secure it firmly in place. RESULTS The femoral head's shape allowed for creation of a graft that provides excellent surface area for fusion across C1-C2. There were no intraoperative complications, including dural tears. Postoperatively, no patients had sensorimotor deficits, pain, or occipital neuralgia. 5 patients demonstrated clinical resolution of symptoms by 3 mo and radiographic (computed tomography) evidence of fusion at 1 yr. One patient had good follow-up at 1 mo but died due to complications of Alzheimer disease. CONCLUSION The posterior arch femoral head allograft strut technique with securing sutures is a viable option for supplementing screw-rod fixation in the treatment of complex atlantoaxial instability.

Bifid Anterior and Posterior Arches of Atlas

Neurosurgery ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 77 (2) ◽  
pp. 296-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atul Goel ◽  
Trimurti Nadkarni ◽  
Abhidha Shah ◽  
Raghvendra Ramdasi ◽  
Neeraj Patni
Keyword(s):  
Craniovertebral Junction ◽  
Basilar Invagination ◽  
Atlantoaxial Instability ◽  
Os Odontoideum ◽  
Occipital Condyle ◽  
Posterior Arch ◽  
Discrete Movements ◽  
General Observation ◽  
Fixation Techniques ◽  
Group 1

Abstract BACKGROUND: 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.

Atlantoaxial Fusion Using C1 Sublaminar Cables and C2 Translaminar Screws

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 647-653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra M Giantini Larsen ◽  
Benjamin L Grannan ◽  
Robert M Koffie ◽  
Jean-Valéry Coumans
Keyword(s):  
Vertebral Artery ◽  
Nerve Root ◽  
Limited Range ◽  
Atlantoaxial Instability ◽  
Posterior Arch ◽  
Hardware Failure ◽  
Risk Of Injury ◽  
Limited Range Of Motion ◽  
C2 Nerve Root ◽  
Translaminar Screws

Abstract BACKGROUND Atlantoaxial instability, which can arise in the setting of trauma, degenerative diseases, and neoplasm, is often managed surgically with C1–C2 arthrodesis. Classical C1–C2 fusion techniques require placement of instrumentation in close proximity to the vertebral artery and C2 nerve root. OBJECTIVE To report a novel C1–C2 fusion technique that utilizes C2 translaminar screws and C1 sublaminar cables to decrease the risk of injury to the vertebral artery and C2 nerve root. METHODS To facilitate fixation to the atlas, while minimizing the risk of injury to the vertebral artery and to the C2 nerve root, we sought to determine the feasibility of using a soft cable around the C1 arch and affixing it to a rod connected to C2 laminar screws. We reviewed our experience in 3 patients. RESULTS We used this technique in patients in whom we anticipated difficult C1 screw placement. Three patients were identified through a review of the senior author's cases. Atlantoaxial instability was associated with trauma in 2 patients and chronic degenerative changes in 1 patient. Common symptoms on presentation included pain and limited range of motion. All patients underwent C1–C2 fusion with C2 translaminar screws with sublaminar cable harnessing of the posterior arch of C1. There were no reports of postoperative complications or hardware failure. CONCLUSION We demonstrate a novel, technically straightforward approach for C1–C2 fusion that minimizes risk to the vertebral artery and to the C2 nerve root, while still allowing for semirigid fixation in instances of both traumatic and chronic degenerative atlantoaxial instability.

Use of a titanium mesh cage for posterior atlantoaxial arthrodesis

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 127-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morio Matsumoto ◽  
Kazuhiro Chiba ◽  
Takashi Tsuji ◽  
Hirofumi Maruiwa ◽  
Yoshiaki Toyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Donor Site ◽  
Atlantoaxial Instability ◽  
Os Odontoideum ◽  
Posterior Arch ◽  
Rigid Fixation ◽  
Titanium Mesh ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Atlantoaxial Fixation ◽  
Mesh Cage ◽  
Atlantoaxial Arthrodesis

✓ The authors placed titanium mesh cages to achieve posterior atlantoaxial fixation in five patients with atlantoaxial instability caused by rheumatoid arthritis or os odontoideum. A mesh cage packed with autologous cancellous bone was placed between the C-1 posterior arch and the C-2 lamina and was tightly connected with titanium wires. Combined with the use of transarticular screws, this procedure provided very rigid fixation. Solid fusion was achieved in all patients without major complications. The advantages of this method include more stable fixation, better control of the atlantoaxial fixation angle, and reduced donor-site morbidity compared with a conventional atlantoaxial arthrodesis in which an autologous iliac crest graft is used.

scholarly journals Agenesis of the posterior arch of the atlas

2002 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Torriani ◽  
José Leonardo Goes Lourenço
Keyword(s):  
Computerized Tomography ◽  
Congenital Abnormality ◽  
Structural Instability ◽  
Neurological Deficits ◽  
Atlantoaxial Instability ◽  
Posterior Arch ◽  
Rare Entity ◽  
Radiological Findings ◽  
Plain Films ◽  
Rare Congenital Abnormality

PURPOSE: To illustrate the radiological findings and review the current literature concerning a rare congenital abnormality of the posterior arch of the atlas. CASE REPORT: An adult female without neurological symptoms presented with an absent posterior arch of the atlas, examined with plain films and helical computerized tomography. Complete agenesis of the posterior arch of the atlas is a rare entity that can be easily identified by means of plain films. Although it is generally asymptomatic, atlantoaxial instability and neurological deficits may occur because of structural instability. Computerized tomography provides a means of assessing the extent of this abnormality and can help evaluate the integrity of neural structures. Although considered to be rare entities, defects of the posterior arch of the atlas may be discovered as incidental asymptomatic findings in routine cervical radiographs. Familiarity with this abnormality may aid medical professionals in the correct management of these cases.

scholarly journals Biomechanical Evaluation of Unilateral Versus Bilateral C1 Lateral Mass-C2 Intralaminar Fixation

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nitin Bhatia ◽  
Asheen Rama ◽  
Brandon Sievers ◽  
Ryan Quigley ◽  
Michelle H. McGarry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Biomechanical Properties ◽  
Lateral Mass ◽  
Intact State ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Fixation Techniques ◽  
Rotation Stiffness ◽  
Biomechanical Evaluation ◽  
C2 Fixation

Study Design: Biomechanical, cadaveric study. Objectives: To compare the relative stiffness of unilateral C1 lateral mass-C2 intralaminar fixation to intact specimens and bilateral C1 lateral mass-C2 intralaminar constructs. Methods: The biomechanical integrity of a unilateral C1 lateral mass-C2 intralaminar screw construct was compared to intact specimens and bilateral C1 lateral mass-C2 intralaminar screw constructs. Five human cadaveric specimens were used. Range of motion and stiffness were tested to determine the stiffness of the constructs. Results: Unilateral fixation significantly decreased flexion/extension range of motion compared to intact ( P < .001) but did not significantly affect axial rotation ( P = .3) or bending range of motion ( P = .3). There was a significant decrease in stiffness in extension for both unilateral and bilateral fixation techniques compared to intact ( P = .04 and P = .03, respectively). There was also a significant decrease in stiffness for ipsilateral rotation for the unilateral construct compared to intact ( P = .007) whereas the bilateral construct significantly increased ipsilateral rotation stiffness compared to both intact and unilateral fixation ( P < .001). Conclusion: Bilateral constructs did show improved biomechanical properties compared to the unilateral constructs. However, unilateral C1-C2 fixation using a C1 lateral mass and C2 intralaminar screw-rod construct decreased range of motion and improved stiffness compared to the intact state with the exception of extension and ipsilateral rotation. Hence, a unilateral construct may be acceptable in clinical situations in which bilateral fixation is not possible, but an external orthosis may be necessary to achieve a fusion.

scholarly journals The application of C2 transpedicular screw, C1 laminar hook fixation and bone graft in the atlantoaxial instability

2021 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 94-98
Author(s):  
Şükrü ORAL
Keyword(s):  
Motor Vehicle ◽  
Motor Vehicle Accident ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Atlantoaxial Instability ◽  
Posterior Arch ◽  
X Rays ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Transpedicular Screw ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Laminar Hooks

Traumatic atlantoaxial instability usually results from a motor vehicle accident, falls and motorcycle accidents. Atlantoaxial instability can lead to spinal cord compression and neck pain, but, spasticity and radicular symptoms as well. The purpose of surgery is to remove the compression and stabilize the joint permanently. To date, several surgical techniques have been described to remedy C1-C2 instability. In this study, the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients who operated with the C1 (Atlas bone) laminar hooks fixation and bilateral C2 (Axis bone) trans-pedicular screw technique were shown. Also, the advantages and disadvantages of this technique are discussed. From March 2010 to December 2017, 12 patients who have atlantoaxial instability were surgically treated by modified fixation technique which consists C1 laminar hooks fixation and bilateral C2 transpedicular screw. Twelve patients were operated with this procedure from March 2010 to December 2017. All the patients were checked with flexion-extension x-rays at the end of the twelfth week. The posterior bony fusion formation was observed on imaging in all patients. C2 bilateral pedicle screw combined with C1 laminar hook system is a good method for atlantoaxial instability in the conditions which is not convenient for insertion of C1 lateral mass and C2 trans-articular screw. However, this method may not be available in some cases such as traumatic, infection, neoplastic or degenerative pathologies in which the posterior arch of the atlas is damaged.

scholarly journals Occipitocervical Fixation: General Considerations and Surgical Technique

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 647-656 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrei Fernandes Joaquim ◽  
Joseph A. Osorio ◽  
K. Daniel Riew
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Technique ◽  
Vascular Complications ◽  
Craniocervical Junction ◽  
Atlantoaxial Instability ◽  
Occipitocervical Fixation ◽  
Fixation Techniques ◽  
Narrative Literature ◽  
Craniocervical Instability ◽  
Narrative Literature Review ◽  
Improve Patient

Study Design: Narrative literature review. Objective: To review and present details on the occipitocervical fixation (OCF) technique as well as considerations for planning the procedure. Methods: We present the surgical technique of OCF in a step-by-step didactic and practical manner with surgical tips and tricks, including C1 and C2 screw fixation techniques. Additionally, we discuss complications, the extension of fusion, types of OCF, and how to avoid common side effects associated with OCF. Results: The complex and mobile anatomy of the craniocervical junction, when requiring fixation and fusion, warrants rigid instrumentation that can be achieve using a modern screw-plate-rod construct. Indications for OCF are craniocervical instability, and atlantoaxial instability when selective atlantoaxial fusion is not feasible. OCF generally involves occiput-C2 fusion. C1 fixation is generally unnecessary, since it increases the surgical time and is associated with the risk of vascular complications. Selective occiput-C2 fusion is recommended when there is no need for including the cervical subaxial region (eg, when stenosis or fractures coexist in the subaxial spine), and good fixation is achieved at C2. Most instrumentation systems now have occipital plates that are not pre-integrated to rods, making fixation much simpler. Surgical steps, from position to wound closure, are presented in detail, with pearls for practice and discussion of cervical alignment. Conclusions: OCF is a challenging procedure, with potential risk of severe adverse effects. Understanding the surgical indications, as well as the nuances of the surgical technique, is required to improve patient outcomes and avoid complications.

Atlantoaxial stabilization using multiaxial C-1 posterior arch screws

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 522-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael B. Donnellan ◽  
Ioannis G. Sergides ◽  
William R. Sears
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Results ◽  
Posterior Arch ◽  
Lateral Mass ◽  
Normal Anatomy ◽  
Novel Technique ◽  
Vertebral Arteries ◽  
Fixation Techniques ◽  
Atlantoaxial Fixation ◽  
Atlantoaxial Stabilization ◽  
Lateral Mass Screws

The authors present a novel technique of atlantoaxial fixation using multiaxial C-1 posterior arch screws. The technique involves the insertion of bilateral multiaxial C-1 posterior arch screws, which are connected by crosslinked rods to bilateral multiaxial C-2 pars screws. The clinical results are presented in 3 patients in whom anomalies of the vertebral arteries, C-1 lateral masses, and/or posterior arch of C-1 presented difficulty using existing fixation techniques with transarticular screws, C-1 lateral mass screws, or posterior wiring. The C-1 posterior arch screws achieved solid fixation and their insertion appeared to be technically less demanding than that of transarticular or C-1 lateral mass screws. This technique may reduce the risk of complications compared with existing techniques, especially in patients with anatomical variants of the vertebral artery, C-1 lateral masses, or C-1 posterior arch. This technique may prove to be an attractive fixation option in patients with normal anatomy.

The Role of Transverse Connectors in C1-C2 fixation for Atlantoaxial Instability: Is It Necessary? A Biomechanical Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 140 ◽  
pp. e212-e218
Author(s):  
Teng Li ◽  
Chao Ma ◽  
Yue-Qi Du ◽  
Guang-Yu Qiao ◽  
Xin-Guang Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biomechanical Study ◽  
Atlantoaxial Instability ◽  
C2 Fixation
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document