Atlantoaxial Transarticular Screw Fixation

Is external cervical orthotic bracing necessary after posterior atlantoaxial fusion with modern instrumentation: meta-analysis and review of literature

BACKGROUND

No guidelines exist regarding external cervical orthoses (ECO) after atlantoaxial fusion. We reviewed published series describing C1-2 posterior instrumented fusions with screw-rod constructs (SRC) or transarticular screws (TAS) and compared rates of fusion with and without postoperative ECO.

METHODS

Online databases were searched for English-language articles between 1986 and April 2011 describing ECO use after posterior atlantoaxial instrumentation with SRC or TAS. Eighteen studies describing 947 patients who had SRC (± ECO: 254 of 693 patients), and 33 studies describing 1424 patients with TAS (± ECO: 525 of 899 patients) met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis techniques were applied to estimate rates of fusion with and without ECO use.

RESULTS

All studies provided class III evidence, and no studies directly compared outcomes with or without ECO use. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who achieved successful fusion between patients treated with ECO and without ECO for SRC or TAS patients. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for rates of fusion ± ECO were 97.4% (CI: 95.2% to 98.6%) versus 97.9% (CI: 93.6% to 99.3%) for SRC and 93.6% (CI: 90.7% to 95.6%) versus 95.3% (CI: 90.8% to 97.7%) for TAS. There was no correlation between duration of ECO treatment and fusion (dose effect).

CONCLUSIONS

After C1-2 fusion with modern instrumentation, ECO may be unnecessary (class III). Some centers recommend ECO use with patients with softer bone quality (class IV). Prospective, randomized studies with validated radiographic and clinical outcome metrics are necessary to determine the utility of ECO after C1-2 fusion and its impact on patient comfort and cost.

Atlantoaxial fusion with transarticular screws: meta-analysis and review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

To review published series describing C1-2 posterior instrumented fusions and summarize clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients treated with transarticular screw (TAS) fixation.

METHODS

Online databases were searched for English-language articles published between 1986 and April 2011 describing posterior atlantoaxial instrumentation with C1-2 TAS fixation. There were 45 studies including 2073 patients treated with TAS that fulfilled inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis techniques were used to calculate outcomes.

RESULTS

All studies provided class III evidence. The 30-day perioperative mortality rate was 0.8%, and the incidence of neurologic injury was 0.2%. The incidence of clinically significant malpositioned screws was 7.1% (confidence interval [CI], 5.7%-8.8%), the incidence of vertebral artery injury was 3.1% (CI, 2.3%-4.3%), and the rate of fusion with the TAS technique was 94.6% (CI, 92.6%-96.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

TAS fixation is a safe and effective treatment option for C1-2 instability with high rates of fusion (approximately 95%). Screw malposition and vertebral artery injury occurred in approximately 5% of patients. The successful insertion of TAS requires a thorough knowledge of atlantoaxial anatomy.

Biomechanical investigation of a novel integrated device for intra-articular stabilization of the C1-C2 (atlantoaxial) joint

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The anatomy of the atlantoaxial joint makes stabilization at this level challenging. Current techniques that use transarticular screw fixation (Magerl) or segmental screw fixation (Harms) give dramatically improved stability but risk damage to the vertebral artery. A novel integrated device was designed and developed to obtain intra-articular stabilization via primary interference fixation within the C1-C2 lateral mass articulation.

PURPOSE

To assess the atlantoaxial stability achieved with a novel integrated device when compared with the intact, destabilized, and stabilized state using the Harms technique.

STUDY DESIGN

A biomechanical study of implants in human cadaveric cervical spines.

METHODS

Six human cadaveric specimens were used. Biomechanical testing was performed with moment control in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Range of motion (ROM) was measured in the intact state, after both destabilization by creation of a Type II odontoid peg fracture and sequential stabilization using the integrated device and the Harms technique.

RESULTS

Mean flexion-extension ROM of the intact specimens at C1-C2 was 14.1°±2.9°. Destabilization increased the ROM to 31.6°±4.6°. Instrumentation with the Harms technique reduced flexion-extension motion to 4.0°±1.4° (p<.01). The integrated device reduced flexion-extension motion to 3.6°±1.8° (p<.01). In lateral bending, the respective mean angular motions were 1.8°±1.1°, 14.1°±5.8°, 1.4°±0.7°, and 0.4°±0.3° for the intact destabilized Harms technique and integrated device. For axial rotation, the respective mean values were 67.3°±13.8°, 74.2°±16.1°, 1.4°±0.7° and 0.9°±0.7°. Both the Harms technique and integrated device significantly reduced motion compared with the destabilized spine in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation (p<.05). Direct comparison of the Harms technique and the integrated device revealed no significant difference (p>.10).

CONCLUSIONS

The integrated device resulted in interference fixation at the C1-C2 lateral mass joints with comparable stability to the Harms technique. Perceived advantages with the integrated device include avoidance of fixation below the C2 lateral mass where the vertebral artery is susceptible to injury, and access to the C1 screw entry point through the blade of the integrated device avoiding extended dissection superior to the C2 nerve root and its surrounding venous plexus.

Modified technique for C1-2 screw-rod fixation and fusion using autogenous bicortical iliac crest graft

INTRODUCTION

Various techniques have been described for posterior atlantoaxial fusion. Sublaminar passage of the wire/cable is cumbersome with a risk of spinal cord injury. Packing morselized bone grafts into the C1-2 facet joints may be difficult and it may cause massive bleeding and neuropathic pain or posterior scalp numbness postoperatively. We introduce a modified method by using C1-2 screw-rod fixation (SRF) to compress a structural iliac bone graft between the posterior elements of C1 and C2 without supplemental wiring construct.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From December 2006 to May 2009, 35 consecutive patients with atlantoaxial instability treated by this method were reviewed retrospectively. Clinical and radiographic history was recorded. Patients with neck pain had relieved significantly after surgery and the neurologic status was also improved greatly. Thirty-three (94.3%) patients gained bony fusion at 3 months postoperatively. No vertebral artery and spinal cord injuries were noted. There was no instrumentation failure during the observation period.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the C1-2 SRF with construct-compression structural bone grafting can be used for C1-2 fusion with relatively simple performance and less time-consuming in selected cases.