Placement of C1 Lateral Mass Screw—Alternative Technique: 2-Dimensional Operative Video

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. E297-E297 ◽  
Author(s):  
R Tushar Jha ◽  
Nicholas Dietz ◽  
Ehsan Dowlati ◽  
Faheem Sandhu

Abstract This operative video demonstrates a C1 lateral mass instrumentation technique that is an alternative to the traditional Goel and Harms techniques.1,2 The advantages of the alternative technique include minimized blood loss from the rich venous plexus surrounding the C2 dorsal root ganglia (DRG), avoidance and preservation of the C2 DRG, and placement of a robust fully threaded screw without risking neuralgia. These are discussed in detail and presented through a case of atlantoaxial instability. Patient's consent was obtained for creating this surgical video. The patient is a 50-yr-old woman with a 17-yr history of rheumatoid arthritis. She presented with 1 yr of neck pain that failed conservative measures. Flexion-extension radiographs demonstrated an atlantodental index (ADI) that reduced from 7 mm on flexion to 0 mm on extension. The patient underwent a C1-C2 posterior instrumented fusion using the alternative technique of C1 lateral mass instrumentation.2 The steps of this technique are explained in great detail through a microsurgical video. The patient's postoperative course was uneventful. Postoperative radiographs and computed tomography (CT) scan demonstrated reduction of ADI and well-placed instrumentation and fusion construct. Her neck pain was completely resolved by 3 mo following surgical stabilization. In the senior author's experience with placing over 120 C1 lateral mass screws with this alternative technique, there have been no instances of vascular injury, sacrifice of C2 DRG, or instrumentation failure. The alternative technique for placement of C1 lateral mass screw is safe, efficient, and holds certain advantages in comparison to the traditionally described method.  Images within the video have been reproduced from AOSpine section of the AO Surgery Reference, www.aosurgery.org, with permission from AO Surgery. Copyright by AOSpine International, Switzerland; and reprinted from World Neurosurgery, 78(1-2), Kang MM et al, C2 Nerve Root Sectioning in Posterior C1-2 Instrumented Fusions, 170-177, Copyright 2012, with permission from Elsevier.

Neurosurgery ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 66 (suppl_3) ◽  
pp. A153-A160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Praveen V. Mummaneni ◽  
Daniel C. Lu ◽  
Sanjay S. Dhall ◽  
Valli P. Mummaneni ◽  
Dean Chou

Abstract OBJECTIVE We review our experience and technique for C1 lateral mass screw fixation. We compare the results of 3 different constructs incorporating C1 lateral mass screws: occipitocervical (OC) constructs, C1–C2 constructs, and C1 to mid/low cervical constructs. METHODS We performed a retrospective chart review of 42 consecutive patients who underwent C1 lateral mass fixation by 2 of the authors (PVM and DC). The patient population consisted of 24 men and 18 women with a mean age of 64 years. Twenty-two patients had C1–C2 constructs. Twelve patients had constructs that started at C1 and extended to the mid/low cervical spine (one extended to T1). Eight patients underwent OC fusions incorporating C1 screws (2 of which were OC-thoracic constructs). All constructs were combined either with a C2 pars screw (38 patients), C2 translaminar screw (1 patient), or C3 lateral mass screw (3 patients). No C2 pedicle screws were used. Fusion was assessed using flexion-extension x-rays in all patients and computed tomographic scans in selected cases. Clinical outcomes were assessed with preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale neck pain scores and Nurick grading. The nuances of the surgical technique are reviewed, and a surgical video is included. RESULTS Two patients (5%) were lost to follow-up. The mean follow-up for the remaining patients was 2 years. During the follow-up period, there were 4 deaths (none of which were related to the surgery). For patients with follow-up, the visual analog scale neck pain score improved a mean of 3 points after surgery (P < .001). For patients with myelopathy, the Nurick score improved by a mean of 1 grade after surgery (P < .001). The postoperative complication rate was 12%. The complication rate was 38% in OC constructs, 17% in C1 to mid/low cervical constructs, and 0% for C1–C2 construct cases. Patients with OC constructs had the statistically highest rate of complications (P < .001). Patients with C1 to mid/low cervical constructs had more complications than those with C1–C2 constructs (P < .001). Of the 42 cases, there were 3 pseudoarthroses (1 in an OC case, 1 in a C1 to midcervical construct, and 1 in a C1–C2 construct). OC constructs had the highest risk of pseudoarthrosis (13%) (P < .001). CONCLUSION Patients treated with C1 lateral mass fixation constructs have a high fusion rate, reduced neck pain, and improved neurologic function. Constructs using C1 lateral mass screws do not need to incorporate C2 pedicle screws. Constructs incorporating C1 lateral mass screws are effective when combined with C2 pars screws, C2 translaminar screws, and C3 lateral mass screws. Constructs using C1 screws are associated with a higher complication rate and a higher pseudoarthrosis rate if extended cranially to the occiput or if extended caudally below C2.


Neurosurgery ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 74 (5) ◽  
pp. 475-481 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael C. Dewan ◽  
Saniya S. Godil ◽  
Stephen K. Mendenhall ◽  
Clinton J. Devin ◽  
Matthew J. McGirt

Abstract BACKGROUND: Sectioning of the C2 nerve root allows for direct visualization of the C1-2 joint and may facilitate arthrodesis. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical and functional consequences of C2 nerve root sectioning during placement of C1 lateral mass screws. METHODS: All patients undergoing C1 lateral mass screw fixation were included in this prospective study. A standard questionnaire was used to determine the severity of occipital numbness/pain and its effect on quality of life (QOL). Domains of the neck disability index were used to assess the disability related to C2 symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 28 patients were included (C2 transection, 8; C2 preservation, 20). A trend of decreased blood loss and length of surgery was observed in the C2 transection cohort. Occipital numbness was reported by 4 (50.0%) patients after C2 transection. Occipital neuralgia was reported by 7 (35.0%) patients with C2 preservation. None of the patients with numbness after C2 transection reported being “bothered” by it. All patients with occipital neuralgia after C2 sparing reported being “bothered” by it, and 57.1% reported a moderate to severe effect on QOL. The use of medication was reported by 5 (71.4%) patients with neuralgia vs none with numbness. Mean disability was significantly higher with neuralgia vs numbness (P = .016). CONCLUSION: C2 nerve root transection is associated with increased occipital numbness but this has no effect on patient-reported outcomes and QOL. C2 nerve root preservation can be associated with occipital neuralgia, which has a negative impact on patient disability and QOL. C2 nerve root transection has no negative consequences during C1-2 stabilization.


Spine ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (9) ◽  
pp. 1042-1049 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Liu ◽  
Jacob M. Buchowski ◽  
Hongxing Shen ◽  
Jin Sup Yeom ◽  
K Daniel Riew

Spine ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (21) ◽  
pp. E1133-E1136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Pan ◽  
Lijun Li ◽  
Lie Qian ◽  
Jun Tan ◽  
Guixin Sun ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document